Triton Health Care Private Limited, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1817/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2648 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: VIJAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Gift
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.1817/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S TRITON HEALTH C ARE PVT. LTD NO.75, DHANALAKSHMI COLONY NATARAJAN STREET VADAPALANI, CHENNAI 600 026 VS . THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE III(2) CHENNAI [PAN AABCT 3051 A ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI VIJAYAKUMAR, CA /RESPONDENT BY : DR B NISCHAL, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 30 - 12 - 2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 - 01 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-III, CHEN NAI, DATED 28.3.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 . 2. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 3. SHRI VIJAYAKUMAR, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED ` 20 LAKHS FROM SIX ITA NO.1817/14 :- 2 -: PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND OTHER DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE BANK STATEMENTS, PROOF OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND OTHER DETAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, WH EN THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS CONFIRMING T HE LOAN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE F URTHER INVESTIGATION IF HE HAS ANY DOUBT ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE CONFI RMATION LETTERS. THE CIT(A) ALSO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONFIRMATIO N LETTERS GIVEN BY THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, DR B NISCHAL, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IT BORROWED ` 20 LAKHS FROM SIX PERSONS INCLUDING SMT. S NAGASUNDARI, WHO IS NONE OTHER THAN THE MOT HER OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY. THE AS SESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SMT. NAGASUNDARI HAD HUGE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HOWEVER, NO MATERIAL WAS FILE D TO PROVE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND ALSO THE LAND HOLDINGS. SI NCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACT ION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION WHICH WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRM ED BY THE CIT(A). ITA NO.1817/14 :- 3 -: 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AD MITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 20 LAKHS FROM SIX PERSONS. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 2.50 LAKHS FROM KASTHURI. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 4 LAKHS EACH FROM MUTHULAKSHMI AND AMSADAMAYANTHI. THE ASSESSEE ALS O CLAIMED RECEIPT OF ` 5 LAKHS FROM S NAGASUNDARI, WHO IS NONE OTHER THAN THE MOTHER OF THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COM PANY. ANOTHER SUM OF ` 2.50 LAKHS WAS SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM BANU. THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED A SUM OF ` 2 LAKHS FROM MEENA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPARENTLY DISCUSSED THE SOURCE FOR S NAGASUNDARI F OR ADVANCING A SUM OF ` 5 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS S OURCE FOR MAKING ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FU RTHER MATERIAL WITH REGARD TO BANK STATEMENT, LAND HOLDINGS, AGRICULTUR AL INCOME ETC, THE CONFIRMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED. IN RESPECT OF OTHER CREDITORS, THERE IS NO DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) ALSO WITHOUT ANY MUCH OF DISCUSSION, FOUND THAT THE SOURCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND TH E FINANCIAL BACKGROUND OF THE CREDITORS WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED. THE CIT(A) ALSO FOUND THAT THE PERMANENT ACCOUNT NUMBER OF THE RESP ECTIVE CREDITORS WAS NOT FURNISHED. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSE SSEE FILED ITA NO.1817/14 :- 4 -: CONFIRMATION LETTERS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT THE CREDITORS ARE NOT ASSES SED TO INCOME TAX. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO FIN D OUT THE SOURCE OF THE RESPECTIVE CREDITORS INCOME AND WHETHER ANY SU CH ADVANCE WAS MADE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT MAKING A NY INVESTIGATION AND EXAMINATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMPLY DISAL LOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERE D OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO MAKE FURTHER INVESTIGATION ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORD ERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS R EMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SH ALL REEXAMINE THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF NECESSARY CALL FOR FURTHER DETAILS EITHER FROM T HE ASSESSEE OR FROM THE CREDITOR AND DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO BUSINES S PROMOTION EXPENSES IN THE FORM OF GIFT TO THE DOCTO RS. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. REPRESENTATIV E SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING THIS GROUND OF AP PEAL. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO MADE AN ENDORSEMENT IN THE APPEAL FOLDER TO THAT EFFECT. THE LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION TO DISMIS S THIS GROUND OF ITA NO.1817/14 :- 5 -: APPEAL AS NOT PRESSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE G ROUND RAISED BY TH ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO BUSINESS PROMOTION EXPENSES IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PART LY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH JANUARY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 14 TH JANUARY, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF