S.Nanjappan, Coimbatore V. ITO, Coimbatore

ITA 2020/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64527 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR
• Assessee Lawyers: A ARJUNARAJ
• Keywords: Source of fund
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ------- ITA NOS.2019 & 2020/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI S. NANJAPPAN, 33-E, BHARATHIAR ROAD, PAPPANAICKENPALAYAM, COIMBATORE-641 037. V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-III(2), COIMBATORE. (PAN :ACZPN2316F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A. ARJUNARAJ, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN, JR. STANDING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 07-1 1-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-11-201 2 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, COIMBATORE DATED 12-10-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. THESE APPEALS ITA NOS.2019 & 2020/MDS /2011 2 WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY TH IS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. ITA NO. 2019/MDS/2011: FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. HE HAD FILED A RETU RN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,18,026/-. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED INITIALLY U/S 143(1) AND SUB SEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 ON 25-12-2009. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAD GATHERED INFORMATION FROM ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT (AIR) TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CERTAIN CASH DEPOSITS TO THE TUNE OF ` 16,27,026/- INTO THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S. KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SE DEPOSITS. IN RESPONSE TO THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 5-8-2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE OBSERVED AS UNDER : 1) FOR ` 7,50,000/- THE DESPERATE ATTEMPT AT BRINGING IN A LAND DOCUMENT OF A PROPERTY BELONGING TO HIS FATHER IN LAW WHERE HIS WIFE SMT. N. SARASWATHI (SALE CONSIDERATION IS ONLY ` 5,50,000) HAD ONLY ONE FIFTH SHARE, WAS NOT ENOUGH TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE FOR ` 7,50,000/-. ITA NOS.2019 & 2020/MDS /2011 3 2) FOR ` 4,00,000/- THE SO CALLED LOAN OF ` 8 LAKHS FROM SRI G. SUBBIAH NAIDU FOR PURCHASE OF TEXTILE MACHINERY ALSO FELL THROUGH WHEN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SHRI G. SUBBIAH NAIDU SHOWED ONLY ` 2 LAKH AS ONE AND ONLY TRANSACTION. THE ATTEMPT OF THE ASSESSEE TO CREATE A SOLID SOURCE FAILED MISERABLY. 3) FOR ` 3,15,000/- THE ASSESSEE HAD ATTEMPTED TO BRING IN BUSINESS INVESTMENT REALIZED AND DEPOSITED AS THE SOURCE FAILED IN THE WAKE OF MEAGER INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR TAXATION. WHERE AN ASSESSEE CLAIMS CERTAIN SOURCES OF INCOME, THE ONUS IS ON HIM TO BRING ALL THE MATERIA L FACTS ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE SUCH CLAIMS MADE. HENCE, MERE STATING OF SOURCES ALONG CANNOT BE REGARDED AS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR HAVING CREDITED CASH DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT, UNLESS IT IS PROVED BY WAY OF OFFERING PROPER EXPLANATION AND FURNISHING/PRODUCING NECESSARY SUPPORTING DETAILS/EVIDENCE AS REQUIRED FOR EXAMINATION. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONC LUSION THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRE CT AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO I NITIATED ITA NOS.2019 & 2020/MDS /2011 4 AND PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SIMPLY CONF IRMED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE RIGHT FROM T HE ASSESSMENT STAGE WAS NOT CO-OPERATING WITH THE DEPA RTMENT AND WAS NOT INTERESTED IN FILING ANY DETAILS. 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE RECORD S AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CO-OPERATING WITH THE DEPARTMENT A ND THAT NO DETAILS WERE FILED WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE FIND THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH ALL THE DETAILS. THEREFORE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASS ED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ALL THE DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) . AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS AND ALSO HEARING THE ASSESS EE, THE ITA NOS.2019 & 2020/MDS /2011 5 LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPE AL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. ITA NO. 2020/MDS/2011: THIS QUANTUM APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT( APPEALS) ON THE GROUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT PA SSED A DETAILED ORDER AND THAT NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS G IVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS). FROM THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(AP PEALS) WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED TH E APPEAL ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ALL THE DETAILS WHICH WERE VERY MUCH REQUIRED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. WE FI ND THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE DETAILS. THE ASSES SEE IS DIRECTED TO FURNISH ALL THE DETAILS AS REQUIRED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO T HE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECI DE THE ISSUE ITA NOS.2019 & 2020/MDS /2011 6 AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS HEARING THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE A SSESSEE IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 7 TH OF NOVEMBER, 2012, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) ( V.DURGA RAO ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 07 TH NOVEMBER, 2012. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE