TRG Tex, Salem V. ITO, Tiruppur

ITA 1718/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 171821714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 16-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C V PAVANA KUMAR IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: T S LAKSHMIVENKATARAMAN
• Keywords: Depreciation
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , . . ! , '# BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER& SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1718 /MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011) SHRI. R. GOPAL PROP: M/S. TRG TEX, NO.5, ARUKOMBAI STREET, P.N. ROAD, TIRUPUR 641 602. [PAN:AHBPG2391L] ( $% /APPELLANT) VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (3), TIRUPUR. ( &'$% /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN, C.A. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. C.V. PAVANA KUMAR, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 02.09.2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.09.2014 ( / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2010-11; EMANATES FROM ORDER DATED 20.03.2014 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF I.T.A.NO.1718/MDS/2014. :- 2 -: INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, COIMBATORE IN ITA NO.58/12- 13 IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT]. 2. THE ASSESSEES GROUNDS CHALLENGE THE CIT(A) EX-PAR TE ORDER AFFIRMING ADDITION OF F7,26,816/- QUA COST OF CONST RUCTION, DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON ADDITIONAL CONSTRUC TION OF F.50,049/-, EXCESS STOCK OF F.7,00,000/-, SUNDRY CREDITS OF F.2 9,885/- AND UNSECURED LOANS TO THE TUNE OF F.65,500/-, MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2012. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE IS AN PROPRIET OR OF M/S. TRG TEX. THIS CONCERN MANUFACTURES INNER WEARS. ON 12. 10.2009, THE DEPARTMENT HAD CONDUCTED A SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE CONSTRUCTED A BUILDING IN ARUKOMBAI STREET FOR F.8,00,000/-. ITS SOURCE WAS ATTRIBUTED TO PAST SAVINGS. THE ASSESSM ENT ORDER READS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PROVIDE ANY SUPPORT ING EVIDENCE. HE APPEARS TO HAVE OFFERED AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF F.8 ,00,000/- IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY. THE ASSESSING OF FICER ADDED AN AMOUNT OF F.3,00,000/- IN ASSESSMENT PERTAINING TO THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR FRAMED POST SURVEY. I.T.A.NO.1718/MDS/2014. :- 3 -: 4. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN ON 30.11.2011 A DMITTING AN INCOME OF F.4,17,500/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTI CED FROM BOOKS AND OTHER DETAILS THAT COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS F.10,26 ,816/- AS AGAINST F.8,00,000/- UNEARTHED DURING SURVEY. HE ADDED B ALANCE AMOUNT OF F.7,26,816/- IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR OVER A ND ABOVE F.3,00,000/- (SUPRA) AND DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION CLAIM OF ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION OF F.50,049/- FOR WANT OF NECESSARY PR OOF, ADDED EXCESS STOCK OF F.7,00,000/- FOUND AND OFFERED AS ADDITION AL INCOME DURING SURVEY BUT NOT DECLARED IN THE RETURN, SUNDRY CRE DITS OF F.29,885/- FOR WANT OF CONFIRMATION, UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.65,500 /- OUT OF F.1,92,500/- CITING LACK OF VERIFICATION ETC. THE TOTAL INCOME STOOD COMPUTED TO F.19,89,750/-. 5. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE AFORESAID ADDITION IN APPEAL. HE SEEMS TO HAVE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. THE CIT(A) HAD REJECTED ALL HIS GROUNDS BY AN EX-PARTE ORDER AFFIRMING THE ASSE SSING OFFICERS ACTION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN AP PEAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED THE CAS E FILE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NO T REJECTED HIS I.T.A.NO.1718/MDS/2014. :- 4 -: BOOKS QUA COST OF CONSTRUCTION. HE REFERS TO CATEN A OF CASE LAWS (I) SARGAM CINEMA VS. CIT (328 ITR 513 (SC) (II) CIT VS . VIJAYKUMAR D. GUPTHA (365 ITR 470) AND (III) GOOD LUCK AUTOMOBILE S (P) LTD VS. ACIT (359 ITR 306). THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDS TH AT THE FIGURE OF F.10,26,816/-(SUPRA) HAS BEEN WRONGLY TAKEN INSTEAD OF F.7,26,816/-. PER ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE MATER IAL EXCEPT SURVEY STATEMENT TO JUSTIFY THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. THE R EVENUE SUPPORTS THE CIT(A) ORDER. WE REITERATE THAT THE LOWER APPEL LATE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED EX-PARTE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS WITHOUT ANY SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE IN THE CASE FILE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATES THAT THE ASSESSEES BOOKS DEMONSTRATED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS F.10,26,816/-. PRIMA FACI E, THIS ADDITION DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ONLY BASED ON THE SURVEY STATEME NT. THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SEEM TO HAVE FILED ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS /EVIDENCE AND CASE LAW WITH HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THUS, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT ALL THE ASSESSEES GROUNDS AND ARGUMENTS BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECISION AFRESH AS PER LAW WITHOUT BEING INFLUENCED BY THE E ARLIER FINDINGS. THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO PLACE ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF HIS LEGAL AS WELL AS FACTUAL PLEAS. I.T.A.NO.1718/MDS/2014. :- 5 -: 7. THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTIC AL PURPOSES, ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 5TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2014, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . ! ) (S.S. GODARA) ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER !' /DATED:05.09.2014. K.V '# $% &% /COPY TO: 1. ' APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. ( ( )/CIT(A) 4. ( /CIT 5. %)* + /DR 6. *, - /GF.