Mr. A. Subramaniam, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2233/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7860 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B. SAHADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: F.C. JAIN
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92

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. 2233/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI A. SUBRAMANIAM, 38, APPU STREET, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. PAN : ABCPS0130N V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), CHENNAI 600 034. ( /APPELLANT) ( !' /RESPONDENT) & ./ ITA NO. 2234/MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI S. SAMPATH KUMAR, 76, BAZAR ROAD, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. PAN : AABPS2678H V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 2(4), CHENNAI 600 034. ( /APPELLANT) ( !' /RESPONDENT) # /APPELLANT BY : SHRI F.C. JAIN, FCA !' # /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAHADEVAN, JCIT # /DATE OF HEARING : 05.01.2017 # /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.01.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE TWO INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES A RE DIRECTED AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDER OF THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME 2 I.T.A. NO. 2233/MDS/2016 I.T.A. NO. 2234/MDS/2016 TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. SINC E COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN BOTH THE APPEALS, WE HE ARD THE SAME TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OFF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SHRI F.C. JAIN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE AS SESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS SURVEY IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEES ON 10.04.2011. BOTH THE ASSESSEES OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND EIT HER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 OR 2009-10. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY TAKING THE ADDITIONAL INCO ME VOLUNTARILY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09-10 ESTIMATED THE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. ACCORD ING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY TH E ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR MAKIN G ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL FOR ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CA NNOT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSE SSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 3. WE HEARD SHRI B. SAHADEVAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., DU RING THE COURSE OF 3 I.T.A. NO. 2233/MDS/2016 I.T.A. NO. 2234/MDS/2016 SURVEY OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND IMM OVABLE PROPERTIES, COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT ETC. THE ASS ESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE BASED UPON THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE INCOME REASONAB LY. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY THERE WAS A SURVEY OPERATION IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEES O N 10.04.2011. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOUND CERTAIN MATERIAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, O N THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE S FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE OPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED T HE TAXABLE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CO NSIDERED OPINION THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADDITION, THERE SHOU LD BE SOME MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEES OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 THAT CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. E ACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT. THEREFORE ADMISSION MADE BY THE 4 I.T.A. NO. 2233/MDS/2016 I.T.A. NO. 2234/MDS/2016 ASSESSEE OR ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESS EE FOR ONE ASSESSMENT YEAR CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITI ON FOR ANOTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ADDITIONAL IN COME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THEREF ORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE A ND THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES STAN DS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 31 ST JANUARY, 2017. JR. # ! $ % $ /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANTS 2. !' /RESPONDENT 3. &' ( )/CIT(A)-2, CHENNAI 4. &' /CIT 5. ! $ /DR 6. () /GF.