DCIT, CHENNAI V. Rajinder Singh Bhasin, CHENNAI

ITA 2015/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8288 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.2015/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(2) CHENNAI VS. SHRI RAJINDER SINGH BHASIN D-2 THYAGARAJA COMPLEX 853, PONAMALLEE HIGH ROAD CHENNAI 600 010 [PAN AADPB 4229 P ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 23 - 1 1 - 2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01 - 01 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-6, CHENNAI , DATED 21.4.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY RP AD. THE REGISTRY HAS PLACED ON RECORD POSTAL ACKNOWLEDG EMENT AS PROOF OF SERVICE OF NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. INSPITE OF THA T NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THEREFORE, W E HEARD THE LD. ITA NO.2015/15 :- 2 -: DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOS E OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. SHRI P RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S JANATHA ROADWAYS PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED A SUM F ` 15 LAKHS FROM M/S JANATHA ROADWAYS PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE RECEIVED THE CAUTION DEPOSIT FROM THE COMPANY FOR USING THE LAND OWNED BY HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT TO THE EX TENT OF ` 24,00,399/- WAS AVAILABLE WITH M/S JANATHA ROADWAYS PVT. LTD . WHEN THE PAYMENT OF ` 15 LAKHS WAS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE BY M/S JANATHA ROADWAYS PVT. LTD., IT WOULD AMOUNT TO DEEMED DIVID END 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE C OPY OF THE AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/ S JANATHA ROADWAYS PVT. LTD. IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RECEIVING ANY RENT FROM THE COMPANY THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF PAYMENT OF ANY CAUTION DEPOSIT. THE CI T(A), ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, OUGHT NOT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RECEIVING ANY RENT FROM THE CO MPANY. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.DR AN D ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY, THE ASSESSEE IS THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S JANATHA ROADWAYS PVT. LTD AND RECEIVED ITA NO.2015/15 :- 3 -: A SUM OF ` 15 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT WHAT WAS RECEIVED IS A CAUTION DEP OSIT. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT M/S JANATHA ROADWAYS PVT. LTD IS A TRANS PORT CONTRACTOR AND IT OWNS MORE THAN 21 TRUCKS. THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWING THE COMPANY TO USE HIS VACANT LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 1. 58 ACRES FOR PARKING THE VEHICLES. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT COLLECTING ANY RENT OR CHARGES FOR PARKING THE VEHI CLES. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE PAYMENT OF ` 15 LAKHS AS CAUTION DEPOSIT IS A REASONABLE AND GENUINE ONE. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RECEIVING ANY RENT. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER TH ERE WAS ANY AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S JANATHA ROA DWAYS PVT. LTD. IF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OWNS AN Y LAND AND LET OUT THE SAME TO THE COMPANY, THE ASSESSEE IS DEFINITEL Y ENTITLED FOR THE RENT. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO ENTITLED TO RECEIVE CA UTION DEPOSIT WHICH IS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. THEREFORE, WE HAVE TO SEE WHETHER THERE WAS ANY AGREEMENT BETW EEN THE ASSESSEE THE M/S JANATHA ROADWAYS PVT. LTD FOR LETT ING OUT THE PROPERTY BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE TO M/S JANATHA RO ADWAYS PVT. LTD. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND T HE ENTIRE ISSUE IS ITA NO.2015/15 :- 4 -: REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL FIND OUT WHETHER THERE WAS ANY AGREEM ENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND M/S JANATHA ROADWAYS PVT. LTD AND THER EAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST JANUARY, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 1 ST JANUARY, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF