R.Pannerselvam (HUF), CHENNAI V. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, CHENNAI

ITA 1983/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0324 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 20-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M KAUSHIK

Judgement Text

, SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A SMC BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1983/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2008-09 M/S. R.PANNERSELVAM (HUF), 43,ROHINI VASANTHAM, SARANGAPANI STREET, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. VS. THE ACIT, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, CHENNAI. [PAN AAAHR 0200 H ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.M.KAUSHIK,ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR.B.SAGADEVAN, JCIT,D.R ! '# / DATE OF HEARING : 19 - 1 1 - 201 8 $% ! '# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 - 1 1 - 201 8 / O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHENNAI IN ITA NO.222/2015-16/A.Y.2008-09/CIT(A)-2 DATED 17.04.20 18 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. SHRI M.KAUSHIK REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE AND SHRI B.SAGADEVAN REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE RE VENUE. ITA NO.1983/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD.A.R THAT ASSESSEE IS RUN NING A LODGE BY NAME ROHINI LODGE AND ALSO A PERMIT ROOM (BAR) AT NO.13, RAJABATHAR STREET, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI DERIVING INCOME FROM RENTAL AND LODGING BUSINESS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED U/S.133A OF THE ACT BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT ON 27.02.2008, A SHEET WAS FOUND CONTAIN ING THE DETAILS OF DAILY SALES OF PERMIT ROOM FURNISHED BEFORE THE EXCISE AUTHORITIES AND THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ESTIMATED THE SUP PRESSION OF SALES ON THE BASIS OF THAT SHEET, AT 47%. IT WAS A SUBMISSIO N THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE ASSESSEES CASE FOR AN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YE AR HAS DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADOPT 26%. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE DIRECTED TO ESTIMATE THE S UPPRESSION AT 26%. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.D.R VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE SUBM ISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT AT THE OUTSET, T HE ASSESSEE IS ADMITTING THE SUPPRESSION IN WHICH HE IS ARGUING FO R ESTIMATION. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY FACTS TO SHOW THAT THE ESTIMATION IS TO BE TAKEN AT 26%. IT WAS A SUB MISSION THAT THE ESTIMATION ON SUPPRESSED SALES IF AT ALL IS TO BE D ONE, NO FACT HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY OR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. FURTHER, IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT REPRESENTED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), EVEN THOUGH EIGHT ITA NO.1983/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: OPPORTUNITIES HAD BEEN GIVEN. THE LD.D.R DREW OUR A TTENTION TO PARA-9 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) WHEREIN IT HAS BE EN HELD AS UNDER:- 9. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND H AVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS. AS ALREADY DIS CUSSED AT THE OUTSET OF THIS ORDER, THERE HAS BEEN ABSOLUTE NON-C OMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE TO ATTEND TO THE PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. NEITHER ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS WERE FURNISHED. THE FOLLOWING HEARING NOTICES WERE IS SUED TO THE ASSESSEE:- ON 09/01/2017, 27/01/2017, 07/03/2017, 28/12/2017 A ND 16/02/2018(FINAL OPPORTUNITY). IN REPLY TO THE ABOV E, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A LETTER ON 24/01/2017 REQUESTING TO ADJO URN THE HEARING ON 25/01/2017. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE DESIGNATED DATE. SUBSEQUENTLY, ONE MORE SUBMISSION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 14/02/2017 AND REQUEST ED TO ADJOURN THE CASE ON 14/02/2017. THE SAME REMAINED N ON- COMPLIED WITH. ON 21/03/2017, ONE MORE LETTER DATED 20/03/2017 WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE WITH A REQUEST TO AD JOURN THE HEARING ON 21/03/2017. HOWEVER, NO ONE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON 21/03/2017. NEITHER ANY WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS WERE FURNISHED. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ADMIT TEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL NUMBER OF OPP ORTUNITIES BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). NOTHING HAS BEEN PRODUCED BY THE ASS ESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE FOR ESTIMATION AT 26% EITHER BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, OR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) OR BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. EACH YEAR IS SEPARATE AND AN ESTIMATE CANNOT BE CONSTANT FOR EVERY ITA NO.1983/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: ASSESSMENT YEAR. THIS BEING SO, I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). CONSEQUENTLY, THE GROU NDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN THIS APPEAL STAND DISMISSED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 19 TH NOVEMBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER & / CHENNAI ' / DATED: 19 TH NOVEMBER , 2018. K S SUNDARAM (!)* +*! / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. ,! / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. *-.!/ / DR 3. ,!0 1 / CIT(A) 6. .23 / GF