M/s. Pelican Realty Projects Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2277/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8245 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 29-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMAKRISHNAN
• Section: 143(3); 234B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ! ' . # , % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICI AL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2277/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) M/S. PELICAN REALTY PROJECTS PVT. LTD., OLD NO.15, NEW NO.31, RAJAMANNAR STREET, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI -600 017. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD-IV(3), CHENNAI-34. PAN: AACCH1963J ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. B.RAMAKRISHNAN, FCA /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 29 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 TH OCTOBER, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS)- 3, CHENNAI DATED 30.06.2016 IN ITA NO.149/2014-15/ CIT(A)- 3 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 250(6) OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS A PPEAL, HOWEVER, THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE AS FOLLOWS:- (I) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 3,10,019,116/- MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING STOCK. II) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE LEARNED 2 ITA NO.2277/MDS/2016 ASSESSING OFFICER TO CHARGE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DOMESTIC COMPANY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ES TATE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 ON 30.09.2011 DECLARING LOSS OF ` 4,02,708/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE RETURN WAS REVISED THRICE DECLARING THE SAME INCOME . THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 08.08.2013. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED ITS CLOSING STOCK OF LAND AS RS.36,46,36,184/- AND LOSS OF ` 4,02,708/- IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE NOTES TO ACCOUNTS THE CLOSING STOCK WAS SHOWN AS ` 39,56,55,300/-. ON QUERY, IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CORRECT FIGURE IS RS.36,46,36,184/- AND NOT RS.39,56,55,300 /- AS MENTIONED IN THE NOTES TO ACCOUNTS AND FURTHER EXPL AINED THAT THERE WERE CANCELLATION OF SALE FOR RS.3,10,19,116/ - WHICH WAS MISTAKENLY INCLUDED IN THE NOTES TO ACCOUNTS. H OWEVER, 3 ITA NO.2277/MDS/2016 THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE CANCELLATION DEED FOR THE SALE OF LAND. 4. ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESS ING OFFICER BECAUSE EVEN BEFORE HIM NO EVIDENCE WAS PRO DUCED TO ESTABLISH THE CANCELLATION OF THE SALE OF LAND. 5. BEFORE US, OUT THE OUTSET THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THE CANCELLATION DEED AS F RESH EVIDENCE AND REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMIT TED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION AD MITTING THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL GROUND. 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENT LY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZE D REPRESENTATIVE AND PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE R EVENUE MAY BE CONFIRMED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE A DDITIONAL 4 ITA NO.2277/MDS/2016 EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CANCELLING T HE SALE AGREEMENT. IN THIS SITUATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED VIEW THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, W E HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED AS SESSING OFFICER WITH DIRECTION TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE MATTER AFRE SH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW & MERIT. AS REGARDS THE OTHER G ROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO CHARGING OF I NTEREST U/S. 234B & 234C OF THE ACT WE HEREBY HOLD IT TO BE CONSEQUENTIAL AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND IS DISPOSE D OFF. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 26 TH OCTOBER , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( ! ' . # ) ( . ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF