P.Murugesan, CHENNAI V. ACIT, Trichy

ITA 1702/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6905 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAILENDRA MAMIDIPCIT
• Keywords: Salary income; Tax effect; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' , $ '% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1702/CHNY/2014 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI P. MURUGESAN, 35, 36, II STREET, NATARAJAPURAM NORTH COLONY, THANJAVUR 613 004. PAN : AGCPM 7443 H V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. MURUGESAN, SHRI K.K. MAHESH RAJA, ADVOCATE SHRI K. MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, ITP -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, PCIT 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 10.01.2019 34) / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.03.2019 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TIRUCHIRA PALLI, DATED 13.02.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. SHRI K.K. MAHESH RAJA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MANAGING TRUSTEE O F SPRECT AND 2 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 PRIST TRUSTS. BOTH THE TRUSTS ARE RUNNING SEVERAL ENGINEERING AND MEDICAL COLLEGES. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED FEES FOR ADM ISSION OF STUDENTS IN VARIOUS COLLEGES AND ALSO COUNSELING CH ARGES. THERE WAS A CREDIT OF 3,86,19,020/- WITH VARIOUS BANKS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESS EE CLAIMED THAT THE MONEY RECEIVED FROM STUDENTS WAS DEPOSITED IN H IS ACCOUNT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE SAID FUNDS WERE USED FOR THE TRUS T EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSEE, IN FACT, USED THE SAID FUNDS FOR CONS TRUCTION OF BUILDING. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE W AS SEARCH OPERATION ON 05.10.2006 AND 25.11.2006. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE MANAGING TRUST EE WAS COLLECTING CAPITATION FEE BY WAY OF CASH FROM THE S TUDENTS FOR ADMISSION IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RUN BY THEM. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WAS EXAMINED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE CLARIFIED THAT THE COURSE FEE WAS RECE IVED IN THE FORM OF DEMAND DRAFT AND CAPITATION FEE WAS RECEIVED IN CASH. HE FURTHER 3 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 ADMITTED THAT THE CAPITATION FEE WAS NOT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT WAS KEPT SEPARATELY. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT BUILDINGS WERE CONS TRUCTED BY USING CAPITATION FEE OF THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS. TH E FACT REMAINS THAT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED 3,86,19,020/- WHICH WAS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE TRUST ACCOUNT AND NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR D ETAILS. UNLESS THE ASSESSEE GIVES DETAILS OF STUDENTS FROM WHOM TH E CAPITAL FEE WAS COLLECTED, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE FUND COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A TRUST FUND. AC CORDING TO THE LD. D.R., EVEN THOUGH COLLECTION OF CAPITATION FEE WAS PROHIBITED BY A STATE LEGISLATURE AND IT WOULD AMOUNT TO PUNISHABLE OFFENCE, THE MONEY COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TAXABLE UNDER TH E INCOME-TAX ACT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS CAPITATION FEE FOR ADMISSION OF STUDENT S IN THE EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS RUN BY THE TRUSTS. THE MO NEY COLLECTED BY 4 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 WAY OF CAPITATION FEE WAS NOT ACCOUNTED IN THE TRUS T ACCOUNT. IT IS ALSO NOT ACCOUNTED IN ANY OF THE ACCOUNTS. THE ASS ESSEE WAS KEEPING IT SEPARATELY. THE DETAILS OF COLLECTION O F CAPITATION FEE FROM STUDENTS WERE NOT FURNISHED TO ANY OF THE AUTHORITI ES BELOW. EVEN BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE S TUDENTS FROM WHOM THE MONEY WAS COLLECTED ARE NOT FURNISHED. TH EREFORE, THE PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE MONEY SAID TO BE COLLECTED FROM THE STUDENTS BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IT IS ASSESSED IN HIS HANDS. EVEN ASSUMING FOR ARGUMENT SAKE THAT THE MO NEY WAS COLLECTED FROM STUDENTS FOR ADMISSION IN THE EDUCAT IONAL INSTITUTIONS RUN BY THE TRUSTS, STILL IT IS ILLEGAL MONEY COLLEC TED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTRARY TO THE STATE LEGISLATURE. IT IS AN ADMITT ED FACT THAT THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU PROHIBITS COLLECTION OF CA PITATION FEE FOR ADMISSION OF ANY STUDENTS OVER AND ABOVE THE FEE PR ESCRIBED BY HIGH POWER COMMITTEE HEADED BY A RETIRED JUDGE OF H IGH COURT. THEREFORE, ONCE THE ASSESSEE COLLECTS FEES OVER AND ABOVE THE FEE PRESCRIBED BY THE COMMITTEE, BY WHATEVER NAME, IT I S CONSIDERED AS CAPITION FEE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE ADMITS TH AT IT IS A CAPITATION FEE. CONVENIENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCOUNTED THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF THE TRUSTS. HAD IT BEEN ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE TRUSTS AS COLLECTION FOR ADMISSION OVER AND ABOVE THE PRES CRIBED FEE, THE 5 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD HAVE TAKEN ACTION AS PER PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3) FOR WITHDRAWAL OF EXEMPTION GRANTED BY THE RESPECTIVE REGULATORY BODY. TO AVOID SUCH AN ACTIO N BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CONVENIENTLY KEPT T HE SAME SEPARATELY AND DEPOSITED IN HIS OWN ACCOUNT IN SEVE RAL BANKS. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS NO HESITATION IN HOLDI NG THAT IT IS AN INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE LIABLE FOR TAXATION. HENCE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS THE A DDITION OF 1,02,01,357/-. 6. SHRI K.K. MAHESH RAJA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN OF 1,02,01,357/- FROM SEVEN PERSONS. HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND MA DE ADDITION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, WHEN THE ASSESSEE BOR ROWED LOAN, IT DID NOT CONSTITUTE INCOME, HENCE, THERE CANNOT BE A NY ADDITION. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT EVEN TH OUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT WHAT WAS 6 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A LOAN FROM SEVEN PERSONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED DETAILS OF PERSONS FROM WHOM THE LOAN WAS OBTAINED OTHER THAN DISCLOSING THEIR NAMES. FO R THE PURPOSE OF ESTABLISHING THE LOAN TRANSACTION, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS TO ESTABLISH THREE CORDIAL PRINCIPLES, NAMELY, THE IDENTITY OF CREDITORS, CAPACITY OF CREDITORS TO ADV ANCE MONEY AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. IN THIS CASE, ACCORDIN G TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED ANY OF THE PRINCIP LES WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR CASH CREDIT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ONLY THE NA MES OF SEVEN INDIVIDUALS AND HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY OTHER DETAILS FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R. , IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH AND ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY OF C REDITORS, CAPACITY OF CREDITORS TO ADVANCE MONEY AND GENUINENESS OF TR ANSACTION. IN THIS CASE, NONE OF THE ABOVE FACTORS WERE ESTABLISH ED BY THE 7 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS TREAT MENT OF SALARY AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 10. SHRI K.K. MAHESH RAJA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT HE WAS DRAWING 4,75,200/- PER ANNUM FROM THE TRUST KNOWN AS SPRECT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE IS A POST GRADUATE IN PHYSICS. INITIALLY, THE ASSESSEE ALSO OFFICIATED AS PRINCIPAL OF COLLEGE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSE L, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE ABOVE SAID SUM OF 4,75,200/- UNDER THE HEAD SALARY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE LD.COUNSEL HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT OBJECTING THE ADDITION SINCE THE TA X EFFECT REMAINS SAME IRRESPECTIVE OF THE HEAD UNDER WHICH IT IS ASS ESSED. 11. WE HEARD SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDER ATION IS WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF 4,75,200/- ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TOTAL INCOME IS INCOME FROM SALARY OR INCOME FROM O THER SOURCES. 8 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE INCOME, EITHER UNDER THE HEAD SALARY OR UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE TAX EFFECT IS SAME . THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. 12. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DISA LLOWANCE OF LOSSES SUFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN P.R. & SONS AND UNIVERSAL EDUCATION. 13. SHRI K.K. MAHESH RAJA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BUSINESS LOSS O F 10,42,722/- FROM P.R. & SONS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, TH E ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED LOSS OF 14,47,983/- IN UNIVERSAL EDUCATION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED PROFIT ON SALE OF CAR AT 3,51,698/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE SAL E OF BUSINESS IN CAR, HOWEVER, DISBELIEVED THE LOSSES IN OTHER TWO B USINESSES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED THE LOSSES AS WELL IN OTHER TWO BUSINESSES . 14. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE C ASE OF P.R. & 9 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 SONS AND UNIVERSAL EDUCATION, THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PURCHASE INVOICE AND SALE BILLS WERE NOT PRODUCED F OR VERIFICATION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A SINGLE SALE BILL OF TV TO CLAIM THE LOSS OF 10,42,722/- FROM P.R. & SONS AND 14,47,983/- FROM UNIVERSAL EDUCATION. IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE LOSSES SUFFERED IN THE BUSINESS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSE E CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 15. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE THREE BUSINESSES. ONE IS P.R. & SO NS, ANOTHER IS UNIVERSAL EDUCATION AND ANOTHER ONE IS CAR BUSINESS . IN THE CASE OF CAR BUSINESS, THE ASSESSEE SHOWD A PROFIT OF 3,51,698/- WHICH IS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CASE OF P.R. & SONS AND UNIVERSAL EDUCATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED BILLS, INVOICES, ETC. EXCEPT A SINGLE SALE BILL FOR TV. UNLESS THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES THAT THERE WERE LOSSES IN THE BUSINESS BY PRODUCING NECESSARY MATERIAL, THE BUSINESS LOSSES AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ALLOWED. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUN AL DO NOT FIND 10 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 16. NOW COMING TO THE ISSUE OF INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES, SHRI K.K. MAHESH RAJA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED 36,02,000/- AS STUDENT COUNSELLING CHARGES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSE E HAD RICH EXPERIENCE AS PROFESSOR IN PHYSICS. BEFORE ESTABLI SHING THE MEDICAL COLLEGE, THE ASSESSEE WAS WORKING IN PUSHPA M COLLEGE AT THANJAVUR. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE APPOI NTMENT AS CHAIRMAN OF THE EDUCATION TRUST IS A REWARD FOR HIS EDUCATION, EFFICIENCY AND OTHER NOTABLE QUALITIES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, 36,02,000/- WAS A REWARD FOR COACHING THE STUDENTS TO FACE THE DIFFICULT MEDICAL COURSE. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE SALARY PAID BY THE TRUST FOR MERITORIOUS SERVIC E OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DISALLOWED. 17. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE BY A LETTER DATED 07.09.2010, IN RESPECT OF POINT NO.8, EXPLAINED THAT WHAT WAS RECEIVED BY HIM IS COUNSELING CHARGES FROM THE STUDENTS OF NORTH INDIA FOR ADMITTING THEM IN VARIOUS EDUCAT IONAL INSTITUTIONS 11 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 AT CHENNAI. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., BY LETTER DATED 21.10.2010, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THESE WERE THE CHARGES RECEIVED AT CHENNAI RELATING TO COUNSELING OF NORTH INDIAN STUDENTS FOR THEIR ADMISSION IN VARIOUS COLLEGES IN CHENNAI. HOWEVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT F URNISH THE DETAILS OF STUDENTS AND HE HAS GIVEN ONLY THE NAMES OF STUD ENTS FROM WHOM THE SO-CALLED COUNSELING FEES WERE RECEIVED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN EVEN ADDRE SS OF THE STUDENTS. ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE SAID TO BE RECEIVE D BY CASH. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON A SINGLE DAY, I. E. ON 16.11.2007, THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF 36,02,000/- WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IN FACT, THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE TRUST KNOWN AS SPRECT. THEREFORE , ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE SAID AMOUNT HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 18. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON A SINGLE DAY, I.E. ON 16.11.2007, THE SUM OF 36,02,000/- WAS CREDITED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FROM SPRECT TRUST. EVEN T HOUGH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THERE WAS A REWARD FOR COACHIN G THE STUDENTS 12 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 TO FACE DIFFICULT MEDICAL COURSE, THE FACT REMAINS THAT IT IS AN AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF CLAIMS THAT HE WAS AN EXPERIENCED PROFESSOR IN PHYSICS AND HE WAS COACHING THE STUDENTS TO FACE TH E MEDICAL COURSE EXAMINATION. THEREFORE, ADMITTEDLY, THE AMO UNT OF 36,02,000/- PAID ON 16.11.2007 IS THE AMOUNT RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS PROFESSIONAL SERVICE. THEREFORE, THIS HAS TO BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME. HENCE, THE C IT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH T HE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRM ED. 19. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ONE MORE GROUND WITH REG ARD TO LEVY OF SURCHARGE. 20. WE HEARD SHRI K.K. MAHESH RAJA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, THE LD. D.R. T HIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT SURCHARGE IS MANDATO RY WHILE COMPUTING THE TAXABLE INCOME AS PROVIDED UNDER THE SCHEME OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FI ND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 13 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 21. THE NEXT ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO TAX CREDIT. 22. SHRI K.K. MAHESH RAJA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX TO THE EXTENT OF 20,79,270/- WAS DEDUCTED BY SPRECT TRUST. THIS WAS NOT GIVEN CREDIT. 23. WE HEARD SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, THE LD. D.R. AL SO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE TAX WAS ACTUALLY CRE DITED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE ASKED TO VERIFY THE SAME A ND GIVE CREDIT. 24. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EIT HER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IF THE TAX WAS DEDUC TED AT SOURCE FOR ANY PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT HAS TO BE GIVEN CREDIT IF THE ASS ESSEE DISCLOSED THE SOURCE OF INCOME DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIO N. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL VERIFY THE SAME. ACCOR DINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE IS SUE OF TAX CREDIT IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE OF TAX CREDIT AN D FIND OUT WHETHER THE ASSESSEES INCOME WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION AND IF SO, GIVE CREDIT 14 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 IN RESPECT OF THOSE INCOME OFFERED FOR TAXATION ON WHICH THE TAX WAS DEDUCTED. 25. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED AN ISSUE WITH REGA RD TO LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT. 26. WE HEARD SHRI K.K. MAHESH RAJA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SAILENDRA MAMIDI, THE LD. D.R. T HIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT LEVY OF INTEREST UND ER SECTION 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT IS MANDATORY. THEREFORE, THE A SSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE ISSUE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE TH E ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST MARCH, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 1 ST MARCH, 2019. 15 I.T.A. NO.1702/CHNY/14 KRI. / -278 98)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 :2 () /CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPPALLII 4. 1 :2 /CIT, CENTRAL-II, CHENNAI 5. 8; -2 /DR 6. <( = /GF.