Sh. C. Murugan, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2035/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8308 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Assessee Lawyers: K G RAGHUNATH
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . . !' , # $% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2035/MDS/2016 & '& /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI C.MURUGAN, H-37/6, KALAKSHETRA COLONY, GEETHA APARTMENTS, KUMARAN STREET, BESANT NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 090. PAN : ADHPM 3777 E V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD IV(2), CHENNAI 600 034. ( () /APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) () , - /APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.G.RAGHUNATH, ADVOCATE *+(),- /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT ,.# /DATE OF HEARING : 22.09.2016 /0' ,.# /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.09.2016 /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) -15 DATED 2011-12. 2 I.T.A. NO.2035/MDS/2016 2. SHRI K.G.RAGHUNATH, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE OWN TWO BUSES AND PLYING THE SAME FROM CHENNAI TO SAYALKUDI. THE MONEY COLLECTED FOR PLYING THE BUSES WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO THE TRIP SEAT, THE COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT, ETC. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) REFUSED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAI LS OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ON VARIOUS DATES. SINCE THE CIT(A) REFUSED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY B E REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER FOR RE-EXAMINATION. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI SHIVA SRINIVAS, THE LEARNE D DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE HAS GIVEN NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE NECESS ARY DETAILS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPLE TING THE ASSESSMENT. EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON THE L AST DAY. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESE NTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) IN FACT CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT ON THE BASI S OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED SINCE THE SAME WAS FILED AT THE FAKE E ND OF THE HEARING. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED THE OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND 3 I.T.A. NO.2035/MDS/2016 CIT(A). THEREFORE, IT MAY NOT BE NECESSARY TO REMIT THE FILE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-CONSIDERATION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE PLYING TWO BUSES FROM CHENNAI TO SAYALKUDI. THE ASS ESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE PROCEEDS OF THE MONEY COLLECTED FOR PLYING BUSES FR OM CHENNAI TO SAYALKUDI WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO ESTABL ISH THAT THE MONEY WAS COLLECTED IN PLYING BUSES. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) REJE CTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT ON THE BAS IS OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMA ND REPORT. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE FILED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO PLYING OF BUSES AS A SUPPORTING MATE RIAL, THE SAME OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. UNFORT UNATELY, THE CIT(A) REFUSED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND REJECT ED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE INCOME TAX ACT BEING A SPECIAL ENACTMENT FOR COMPUTING THE ASSESSABLE INCOME, LEVY TAX THEREON AND COLLECTION OF TAX, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED ALL THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING ONE FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) HAS GIVEN O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4 I.T.A. NO.2035/MDS/2016 THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT GIV ING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT PREJUDICE THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN ANY WAY. MOREOVER, GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESS EE WOULD DEFINITELY PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDE RS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK IS REMITT ED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE AO SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRESH IN THE LI GHT OF THE MATERIALS THAT MAY BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . !' ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED, THE 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. SP. 5 I.T.A. NO.2035/MDS/2016 , *.!2 32'. /COPY TO: 1. () /APPELLANT 2. *+() /RESPONDENT 3. 4. ( )/CIT(A) 4. 4. /CIT, 5. 25 *. /DR 6. & 6 /GF.