ACIT, Trichy V. Shri V.Amarnath, CHENNAI

ITA 194/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 57994 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: V SUBBARAYAN DCIT RETD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Revised return

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.194(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SHRI V. AMARNATH, OF INCOME-TAX, VS. NO.18, NEW GIRI ROAD, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 17. TIRUCHIRAPALLI. PAN AESPA 5807 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, IRS, ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.SUBBARAYAN, DCIT (RETD. ) DATE OF HEARING : 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2012 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2005-06. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AT TIRUCHIRAPALLI ITA 194/2011 :- 2 -: DATED 22.11.2010 AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT C OMPLETED UNDER SEC.153C READ WITH SEC.153A(A) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 2. IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING AU THORITY HAS MADE TWO-FOLD ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. THE FIRST ADDITION WAS ` 16,26,300/- TOWARDS INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESIDENTIAL FLAT. THE SECOND ADDITION WAS ` 3 LAKHS ADDED TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN FRANCHISEE FEES. IN FI RST APPEAL, THESE TWO ADDITIONS WERE DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME- TAX(APPEALS). THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND, THEREF ORE, THE SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. WE HEARD SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, THE LEARNED COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE AND SHRI V. SU BBARAYAN, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE. 4. THERE IS A DELAY OF TWO DAYS IN FILING THIS APPE AL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX WH O HAS FILED THIS APPEAL HAS PLACED AN AFFIDAVIT ON RECORD STATI NG THE REASONS WHICH CAUSED THE DELAY OF TWO DAYS. ON PERUSAL OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DELAY OF TWO DAYS HAS B EEN SATISFACTORILY ITA 194/2011 :- 3 -: EXPLAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY IS CONDONED AND THE APPEAL IS ADMITTED FOR HEARING. 5. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN O RIGINAL RETURN AND THEREAFTER, SUBSEQUENT UPON A SEARCH, THE REVIS ED RETURN WAS ALSO FILED. WHILE DEFENDING HIS CASE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HE HAD DISCLOSED THE DETAILS IN THE BALANC E SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL RETURN ITSELF AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE MADE DISALLOWANCE ON THE BASIS OF T HE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE REVISED RETURN. THE REA SON FOR THIS ARGUMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD POINTE D OUT CERTAIN DISPARITY IN THE FIGURES REFLECTED IN THE FIRST BAL ANCE SHEET AND THE SECOND BALANCE SHEET. IT SEEMS THAT THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS) CARRIED AWAY BY THE ABOVE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN FACT, HAS NO MUCH RELEVANCE AS FAR AS THE ISSUES AGITATED ARE CONCERNED. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS W HETHER THE SOURCES EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE EITHER IN THE FIR ST BALANCE SHEET OR IN THE SECOND BALANCE SHEET IS SATISFACTORILY EX PLAINED TO SUPPORT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS CRUCIAL QUESTION WAS NOT DIRECTLY ANSWERED BY THE ASSESSEE OR ADJUDICATE D BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). THE FILING OF ORIGINAL RETURN ITA 194/2011 :- 4 -: AND THEREAFTER, THE REVISED RETURN, ARE ALL MATTERS OF STATE OF AFFAIRS. THEY ARE NOT THE ISSUES. THE ISSUE IS IN RESPECT OF EXPLAINING THE SOURCES UTILIZED FOR MAKING INVESTMENT. THIS CRUCI AL QUESTION HAS BEEN OVERLOOKED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A PPEALS). IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO ENDORSE THE O RDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). ACCORDING LY, HIS ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND THE FILE IS SENT BACK TO THE ASSESSIN G AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSE E AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON TUESDAY, THE 28 TH OF FEBRUARY, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2012. MPO* ITA 194/2011 :- 5 -: COPY TO: (1) PETITIONE R (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.