Asha Priya Sridhar, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 187/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7428 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B NANDHA KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ANTONY F DEVOTTA
• Keywords: Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.187/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) MS . ASHA PRIYA SRIDHAR, E-94, 13 TH WEST STREET, KAMARAJ NAGAR, THIRUVANMIYUR, CHENNAI-600 041. PAN:ADXPA0793L VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD III(1), CHENNAI-600 034. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. ANTONY F.DEVOTTA, CA RESPONDENT BY : MR. B.NA NDHA KUMAR, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 28 TH MARCH, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 TH MARCH, 2012 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IMPUGNING THE ORDER DATED 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 PASSED BY THE CIT(A-VIII), CHENNAI. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE/APPELLANT FILED E-RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2008. THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) AND REFUND OF ` 17,670/- AS ITA NO.187/MDS/ 2012 2 CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED. SUBSEQUENTLY, T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CAS S ON SCORE BASIS. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 13.08.2009. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUS INESS OF TRADING IN SOFTWARE AND COMPUTER BOOKS FOR SCHOOLS AND CONDUCTING TRAINING PROGRAMMES FOR EDUCATIONAL INST ITUTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE VERIFYING THE EXPENSES REGARDING COMMISSION, BROKERAGE, LEGAL AND PROFESSIONAL CHARG ES FOUND THAT CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE NOT RECEIVED FROM MS . REENA PRISCILLA AND MR. RAMSAY ABRAHAM, TO WHOM PROFESSIO NAL CHARGES/COMMISSION WERE PAID ` 79,137/- AND ` 5,62,500/- RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY D ISALLOWED THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ABOVE SAID PERSONS AND MAD E ADDITION OF ` 6,41,637/- [ ` 79,137 + 5,62,500] IN THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RAIS ED DEMAND OF ` 2,57, 770/- INCLUDING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 244A, 234D AND U/S.220(2). THE ASSESSING OFFICER FU RTHER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS FOR PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C). ITA NO.187/MDS/ 2012 3 3. THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT OR DER DATED 10.12.2010 FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HELD THAT TH E AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT COULD NO T FILE ANY DETAILS EXCEPT STATING THAT THE ABOVE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PAID BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AFTER DEDUCTING TDS. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT COULD N OT PRODUCE ANY PROOF IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT MS. REENA PR ICILLA AND MR. RAMSAY ABRAHAM RECEIVED THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED ABOVE BY RENDERING THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT. S INCE THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY DE TAILS AS WELL AS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FILED IN H IS CASE, THE DECISION TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHELD. SINCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 9.11.2011, THE ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND AP PEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. MR. ANTONY F.DEVOTTA, AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE AFOREMENTIONED PERSONS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CH EQUES ITA NO.187/MDS/ 2012 4 AFTER DEDUCTING TDS. THE TDS WAS DULY DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE WELL IN TIME WITH THE AUTHORITIES. HE FUR THER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATED WITH THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND FURNISHED ALL THE INFORMATION AVAILABL E WITH HER VIZ. LAST KNOWN ADDRESS AND THE DETAILS SUCH AS PA N ETC. WITH REGARD TO THE ABOVE SAID PERSONS. HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PROFESSIONALS IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSE AFTER DEDUCT ING TDS. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT T HE ABOVE SAID PAYMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN MADE DURING THE C OURSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE SUPPORTED THE OR DERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PAYMENTS IN QUESTION MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS. THE PA YMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PROFESSIONALS AFTER DEDUCTING TDS. THE ASSESSEE MADE ALL POSSIBLE EFFORTS TO CO-OPERAT E WITH THE AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED WHATEVER INFORMATION AVAI LABLE WITH HER WITH REGARD TO THE PERSONS TO WHOM PAYMENTS WER E MADE. ITA NO.187/MDS/ 2012 5 THE ASSESSEE GAVE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS TO THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND ALSO OTHER DETAILS SUCH AS PAN ETC. OF THE ABOVE SAID PROFESSIONALS. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT IF THE ABOVE SAID PAYMENTS WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE PROFESSIONALS IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS BY THE ASSE SSE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE ON S UCH PAYMENTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE THE IM PUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH MARCH, 2012. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE) (VIKAS AWASTHY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 28 TH MARCH, 2012. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F .