SHRI SWAMINATHAN CHANDRASEKAR, CHENNAI V. ACIT, NCC - 1, , CHENNAI

ITA 2501/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5540 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S. BHARATH
• Assessee Lawyers: G. SEETHARAMAN
• Keywords: Depreciation; Set aside; FORM 26AS
• Section: 6; 201; 20

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: CHENNAI , , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA , ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER I .T.A. NO. 2501 /CHNY/20 19 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 1 5 - 201 6 ) SHRI S. CHANDRASEKAR, NO.69, M.R.C. NAGAR, R.A. PURAM, CHENNAI 600 028. PAN : A AFPC 1092B VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON - CORPORATE CIRCLE 1 , CHENNAI 600 0 34. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. G. SEETHARAMAN , ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. S. BHARATH , CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 0 3 . 12 .202 0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMEN T : 27. 01.2021 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CHENNAI IN C. NO. 218/263/PCIT - 1/2018 - 19 DATED 13.08.20 19 PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 5 - 201 6 . - 2 - 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME BY ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.17,47,420/ - . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND A NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 01.08.2016. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 13.12.2017. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX BY EXERCISING H IS POWERS CONFERRED UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ISSUED A SHOW - CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND HAD NOTED IN THE ORDER THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 2016, IT IS NOTICED FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THAT A SUM OF RS.1,02,0 01/ - WAS DEBITED TOWARDS LOSS ON SALE OF FIXED ASSET [MOTORCAR] WHICH WAS NOT AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE DISALLOWED AND BROUGHT TO TAX. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO MAKE THE NECESSARY ENQUIRY AND THU S CALLED FOR AN EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A DETAILED REPRESENTATION, WHEREIN HE HAS STATED THAT ALL THE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER VERIFYING ALL - 3 - THE DETAILS COMPL ETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 4. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AFTER CONSI DERING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE PROPER ENQUIRY AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS SET ASIDE AND DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A FRESH ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. ON APPEAL BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING ALL THE DETAILS HA S COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT AND THEREFORE IT IS NOT A CASE FOR REVIEW U/S.263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961. HE SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THAT IN THE PAPER - BOOK, PAGE NO.29 , AUDIT REPORT WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER CO NSIDERING THE AUDIT REPORT COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. 6 . ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER . - 4 - 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8 . IN THIS CASE, ORIGINALLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) AND THEREAFTER WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINING ALL THE DETAILS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. FROM THE PAPER - BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT REVEALS THAT PARTICULARLY IN THE PAPER - BOOK, PAGE NO.10 WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED TO FILE ALL THE DETAILS AND IN RESPONSE TO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DET AILS WHICH ARE IN PAPER - BOOK, PAGE NO.29. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VARIOUS DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE CONSULTANCY CHARGES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND COPIES OF THE SERVICE TAX RETURNS AND COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT AN D RECONCILIATION STATEMENT OF FORM 26AS. IN PAGE NO.34 OF THE PAPER - BOOK, DETAILS OF THE DEPRECIATION CLAIM WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9 . BY CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED ALL THE DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE LOSS ON SALE OF MOTORCAR AND ALLOWED THE SAME. IN - 5 - OUR OPINION IT IS NOT A FIT CASE TO INVOKE SECTION 263. THUS, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEA L OF THE AS SESSEE IN I.T.A NO. 2501 /CHNY/201 9 IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 TH J ANUARY, 2021 IN CHENNAI. SD/ - ( ) ( G. MANJUNATHA ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( ) ( V. DURGA RAO ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI, / DATED: 27 TH JANUARY, 2021 IA , SR. P.S /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. () /CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF