ITO, CHENNAI V. Shri Dinesh Kumar, CHENNAI

ITA 2279/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96266 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIV A V SREEKANTH

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : CHENNAI , . ! '# , $ %& ' [ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.2279/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER BUSINESS WARD X(3) CHENNAI VS. SHRI DINESH KUMAR NO.14, E.K. AGRAHARAM PARK TOWN, CHENNAI 600 003 [PAN AKZPD 0639 F ] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHIV A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 14 - 10 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 - 10 - 2015 , / O R D E R PER BENCH THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, CHENNAI, D ATED 30.8.2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 20009-10. 2. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEA L IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION MADE TOWARDS UNPROVE D CREDITORS TO THE TUNE OF ` 3,52,97,294/-. ITA NO.2279/13 :- 2 -: 3. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF NOTING THE DATE OF HEARING BY THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL I.E ON 23.7.2015. WE, THEREFORE, HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MADE ADDITIONS OF ` 3,52,97,294/- TOWARDS UNPROVED CREDITS AND ` 26,27,506/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED EXCESS DEBTORS. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) DELETED BOTH THESE ADDITIONS. THE REVENUE I S IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION TOWARDS UNPR OVED CREDITORS. 5. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION TOWARDS UNPROVED CR EDITORS ON THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT P ROVED THAT THE CREDITORS ARE BOGUS, THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN RESP ECT OF THESE CREDITORS IN SUCCEEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE TR ANSACTIONS ARE DULY REPORTED TO THE SALES TAX AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILA BLE ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE TOOK A PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS COULD BE RECONCILED ONLY WHEN THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR. THE CIT(A) BASED HIS CONCLUSION ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. A.R WITHOUT CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OUR O PINION, IT IS ITA NO.2279/13 :- 3 -: APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER FOR DUE VERIFICATION OF THE UNPROVED CREDITORS. THE A SSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PROVE THESE UNPROVED CREDITORS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, WE REMIT THE ENT IRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH OCTOBER, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! '# ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) $ / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !' / CHENNAI #$ / DATED: 16 TH OCTOBER, 2015 RD $%&& '(&)( / COPY TO: & 1 . / APPELLANT 4. & * / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. (+,& - / DR 3. & *&./ / CIT(A) 6. ,0&1 / GF