T.V.Murali, Trichy V. ACIT Central Circle 1(1), Trichy

ITA 2460/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5575 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BHARATH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2460/MDS/2017 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI T.V. MURALI, NO.60, MANGAMMA NAGAR, SRIRANGAM, TRICHY-620 006. PAN : AAIPM 4326 M V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), TRICHY. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : NONE ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. BHARATH, CIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 20.12.2017 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.12.2017 / 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 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-19, CHENNA I, DATED 06.07.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2 I.T.A. NO.2460/MDS/17 2. NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE EVEN AFTER SERV ICE OF NOTICE BY RPAD. THEREFORE, WE HEARD LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPE AL ON MERIT. 3. SHRI S. BHARATH, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE SEIZED MATERIAL SHOW S PAYMENT OF 13,50,000/- MADE TO ONE SHRI D. SRINIVASA PERUMAL O N DIFFERENT DATES. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LANDS WERE PURCHASED IN HIS NAME A ND IN THE NAME OF HIS WIFE SMT. POORNIMA MURALI THROUGH THE ABOVE SAID D. SRINIVASA PERUMAL. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE OF 6.91 LAKHS WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT MADE TO D. SRINIVASA PERUMAL. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF 6.91 LAKHS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE PERFORATED PAD FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY E XPLANATION REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF 13,50,000/-, THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF 6,91,000/- WAS ASSESSED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF SHRI BHARAT H, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE RELEVAN T MATERIAL 3 I.T.A. NO.2460/MDS/17 AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION INDICATES A PAYMENT OF 13,50,000/- MADE TO ONE SHRI D. SRINIVASA PERUMAL. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF 6,59,000/- ON DIFFERENT DATES. WITH REGARD TO BALANCE OF 6,91,000/-, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT SHRI D. SRINIVASA PERUMAL IS NOT CO-OPERATING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT EXAMIN ING THE SAID SHRI D. SRINIVASA PERUMAL, OBSERVED THAT IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE OF 6,91,000/- WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT MADE TO SHRI D. SRINIVASA PERUMAL. THE CIT (APPEALS) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON THE GROUND THAT MERE ASSERTION OF BUYING AN ADJACENT PI ECE OF LAND IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZE D MATERIAL. 5. THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE MATERIAL DISCLOSES THE PAYMENT MADE TO SHRI D. SRINIVASA PERUMAL. HOWEVER, THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY PAIN TO EXAMINE SHRI D. SRINIVASA PERUMAL. NO DOUBT, IT IS THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. BUT, WHEN THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR PU RCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS AT THIRUPATTUR VILLAGE, AND HE C OULD NOT GET THE CO- 4 I.T.A. NO.2460/MDS/17 OPERATION OF THE RECIPIENT, NAMELY, SHRI D. SRINIVA SA PERUMAL, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSE SSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE EXERCISED THE POWER CONFERRED ON HIM UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT' ) BY ISSUING SUMMONS. SINCE SUCH AN EXERCISE WAS NOT DONE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION OF 6.91 LAKHS IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE- EXAMINE THE MATTER AND ALSO EXAMINE THE SAID SHRI D. SRINIVASA PERUMAL AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH DECEMBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 28 TH DECEMBER, 2017. KRI. 5 I.T.A. NO.2460/MDS/17 . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A)-19, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL-2, CHENNAI 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.