Shantilal Surana, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2148/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 58077 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K E B RENGARAJAN JR STAND ING
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 234B; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2148(MDS)/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SHRI SHANTILAL SURANA, NEW DOOR NO.23 (OLD NO.13A), MANDAPAM RD., KILPAUK, CHENNAI-10. PAN AADPS0456Q. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(3), CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.RAMAKRISHNAN, FCA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KEB RENGARAJAN, JR.STAN DING COUNSEL DATE OF HEARING : 20 TH MARCH, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 TH MARCH, 2012 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-II AT CHENNAI, DATED 13-10-2011 AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT C OMPLETED - - ITA 2148 OF 2011 2 UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPE AL READ AS BELOW:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ESTIMATED INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AT ` 3,50,000/- INSTEAD OF ` 7,99,750/- INSPITE OF THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI AND THE ORDER OF HIS PREDECESSOR IN THE CASE OF MR.G.R.SURANA WHEREIN MUCH HIGHER INCOME HAS BEEN ESTIMATED PER ACRE ( ` 37,313/- BY THEN HONBLE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI AND ` 50,000/- BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTEREST U/S 234B OF TH E ACT. 3. IN CONNECTED APPEALS, SIMILAR GROUNDS WERE RAIS ED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL SENT BACK THE FILES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ESTIMATE OF AGRICU LTURAL INCOME. - - ITA 2148 OF 2011 3 THE QUESTION OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B IS NOTH ING BUT CONSEQUENTIAL. 4. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ISSUES AGITATED BEFORE US ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW. 5. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON TUESDAY, THE 20 TH OF MARCH, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 20 TH MARCH, 2012. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.