V.M. *& Co., Ramanathapuram V. DCIT Circle 1, Karaikudi

ITA 2267/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8943 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MALATHI R SRIDHARAN
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! .#$#%, ' !( BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2267/CHNY/2018 % *% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2015-16 M/S V.M. & CO., 99/2, MAHARNONBU GROUND ROAD, NEAR NEW VELUMANICKAM THEATRES, RAMANATHAPURAM 623 501. PAN : AAIFV 9271 C V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, O/O PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI-2, MADURAI. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : NONE ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : MS. MALATHI R. SRIDHARAN, CIT 2 0 3' / DATE OF HEARING : 18.12.2018 45* 0 3' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.12.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI, DATED 28.05.2018 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. 2 I.T.A. NO.2267/CHNY/18 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. THE REGISTRY HAS PLACED ON RECORD THE POSTAL ACKNOW LEDGEMENT AS PROOF OF SERVICE OF THE NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. IN SPITE OF RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF HEARING BY RPAD, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE TO RE MAIN ABSENT WHEN THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. THEREFOR E, WE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DI SPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. MS. MALATHI R. SRIDHARAN, THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED 25 LAKHS AS EXPENSES TO COLLECTORATE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE BREAK-UP OF EXPENSES WAS NOT FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THOSE CIRC UMSTANCES, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE PCIT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE PROPER ENQUIRY. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WAS NO ADEQUATE ENQUIRY REQUIRED FOR COMPLETING THE ASSESS MENT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IN EXERCISE O F HIS POWER CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'), THE PCIT DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 4. WE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE L D. D.R., THE 3 I.T.A. NO.2267/CHNY/18 ASSESSEE CLAIMED AN EXPENDITURE OF 25 LAKHS TO COLLECTORATE. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHAT IS THE NATURE OF EXPENDITURE? IS IT STATUTORY PAYMENT OR PAYMENT MADE TO INDIVIDUALS FOR THEIR PE RSONAL BENEFITS NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED AND BROUGHT ON RECORD. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THESE ASPECTS AND SIM PLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PROPER ENQUIRY, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE PCIT HAS RIGHTLY SET AS IDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT. IN THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES, THIS TRIBUNAL DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUT HORITY AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 19 TH DECEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( !.#$#% ) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 19 TH DECEMBER, 2018. KRI. 4 I.T.A. NO.2267/CHNY/18 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. PCIT, MADURAI-2, MADURAI 5. 9; .3 /DR 6. <% = /GF.