Balakrishnan Ganesh, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2662/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95942 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKARC A
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , . ! '# , $ % BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2662/MDS./2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SHRI BALAKRISHNAN GANESH , 89,M T H ROAD, AMBATTUR INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, CHENNAI 600 058. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-XIII(2), CHENNAI. PAN AEPPG 4451 C ( &' / APPELLANT ) ( ()&' / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.T.BANUSEKAR,C.A / RESPONDENT BY : MR.S.DAS GUPTA, JCIT D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 29.07.2015 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.09.2015 * / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-III, CHEN NAI DATED 20.08.2014 IN ITA NO.676/2013-14 PASSED UNDER SEC. 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 144 & SEC. 250 OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 2662/MDS./2014 2 2.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL; HOWEVER THE CRUXES OF THE ISSUES ARE THAT:- 1. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDI TION OF ` 16,74,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS. 2. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF REPAIRS AND COLLECTION EXPENSES OF ` 78,000/-. 3. THE LD. CIT (A) HAD ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S.80C OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED FOR LEVYING INTEREST U /S.234B OF THE ACT. 2.2 ADDITIONAL GROUNDS:- THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD.AO IN TREATING THE INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY OF RS.1,80,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND DENIED THE BENEFIT OF DEPRECIATIO N WHILE ASSESSING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF STEEL UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE M/S.LIBRA STEELS A PROPRIETARY CONCERN, FILED HIS R ETURN OF INCOME FOR ITA NO. 2662/MDS./2014 3 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 11.02.2010 ADMITTIN G HIS INCOME AS ` 3,02,000/-. DUE TO AIR INFORMATION, IT WAS LEARNT T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN HIS BANK A/C TO THE TUNE OF ` 16,74,000/-. THEREFORE THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND NO TICES WERE ISSUED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT RESPOND TO T HE NOTICE AND ALSO DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R. THEREFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE DATE OF HEARING PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER U/S.144 OF THE ACT ON 07.12.2011 BY MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS. ON APPEAL LD. CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER AGGRIEVED BY WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BE FORE US. 4. IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFF ICER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SHOW CAUSE TO THE ASSE SSEE AND THE SAME IS EXTRACTED AS HEREUNDER FOR REFERENCE:- AS THERE HAS BEEN NO RESPONSE AND AS THE DETAILS AN D EVIDENCES CALLED FOR VIDE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 142(1) WERE NOT FURNISHED, IT IS PROPOSED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE MATERIALS ON R ECORD AND ON THE FOLLOWING RULES U/S.144 OF I T ACT,1961, WITH CONSE QUENT PENAL MEASURES: 1. THE ITS REPORTED CASH REMITTANCES INTO BANK ACC OUNT OF RS.16,74,000/- (ICICI BANK) IS TO BE TREATED AS YOUR INCOME FROM U NDISCLOSED SOURCES AND WOULD BE ADDED TO YOUR TOTAL INCOME. ITA NO. 2662/MDS./2014 4 2. NO EVIDENCES & JUSTIFICATION HAVE BEEN FURNISHED FOR THE CLAIM OF REPAIRS & COLLECTION EXPENSES UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM HO USE PROPERTY. FURTHER, U/S.24 ONLY 30% OF ANNUAL VALUE ONLY IS AL LOWABLE. FURTHER, AS NO EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FURNISHED AS TO ESTABLISH THAT THE RECEIPTS ADMITTED UNDER THIS HEAD WERE ACTUALLY FROM HOUSE PROPERTY, THIS SUM OF RS.1,80,000/- IS PROPOSED TO BE TREATED AS INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES, WITH THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.78 ,000/-. 3. REGARDING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S.80C, THE CR EDIT FOR THE PAYMENT OF PREMIUM OF RS.50,000/- PAID TO METLIFE AS THE LIFE INSURED IS DIFFERENT AND ALLOWABILITY IN YOUR HANDS NOT ESTABLISHED. YOUR OBJECTIONS, IF ANY, TO THE ABOVE SHA LL BE FURNISHED WITH NECESSARY AND COMPLETE DETAILS AND EVIDENCE, BESIDE S THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES ALREADY CALLED FOR, ON OR BEFORE 30/11/20 11. ACCORDINGLY, HEARING IN YOUR CASE IS FINALLY POSTED TO 30/11/2011 AT 3 P .M., IT MAY BE NOTED THAT NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITIES WOULD BE AFFORDED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DETAILS/M ATERIALS BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO DID NOT APPEAR B EFORE HIM. THEREFORE, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE FOLLO WING ADDITIONS:- I) UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS OF ` 16,74,000/- II) DISALLOWANCE OF REPAIRS AND COLLECTION EXPENSES OF ` 78,000/- III) DISALLOWANCE U/S.80C OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO ` 50,000/-. ITA NO. 2662/MDS./2014 5 5. BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) THE ASSESSEE MADE THE F OLLOWING REPRESENTATIONS:- I HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE YOU 23.02.2012 AGAINS T THE ABOVE MENTIONED ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THIS REGARD, I WISH TO SUBMIT AGAIN THAT BEFORE THE APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING I HAD FI LED A REVISED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE CASH DEPOSITS AS MAY AGRICULTU RAL INCOME WHICH WAS ORIGINALLY OMITTED TO BE DECLARED IN MY RETURN OF I NCOME BY OVERSIGHT. NOW I HAVE PROOF FOR HOLDING AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR WHICH I AM EARNING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE T HE LD. CIT (A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT PARA OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW FOR REFERENCE: - NO REASON WAS GIVEN WHY THE SAME WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NOR JUSTIFICATION WAS PROVIDED W HY THE SAME BE ADMITTED BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED AND NO EXPLANATION HAS ALSO BEEN MADE OUT TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A. 10. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE DATED 14.10.211 SERVED ON 18.10.2011 AND AGA IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 23.11.2011, BUT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE FOR THE SAME NOR SUBMISSIONS FILED. HENCE, THE GROUND TAKEN THAT THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN A HURRIED MANNER AND NO OPPORTUNITIES AND AS HOW CAUSE NOTICE S WERE NOT GIVEN ETC. IS COMPLETELY WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IN VIEW OF THE ABO VE, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS STATED ABOVE, ARE UPHELD. THE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2662/MDS./2014 6 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE. THE L D. D.R OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LETHARGIC AND NON-CO-OPERATIVE IN THE PROCEEDINGS B EFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) , THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT HE HAD AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE ALSO PROD UCED BEFORE US. THOUGH WE DO NOT APPRECIATE THE ATTITUDE OF THE ASS ESSEE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE HEREBY REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PROD UCE ANY RELEVANT MATERIALS BEFORE THE REVENUE IN ORDER TO SUBSTANTIA TE HIS CLAIM. AT THE SAME TIME, WE ALSO CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROM PTLY CO-OPERATE WITH PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE REVENUE IN ORDER TO EXP EDITE THEIR ORDERS FAILING WHICH THE REVENUE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO PAS S APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT. IT IS ORDERED ACC ORDINGLY. ITA NO. 2662/MDS./2014 7 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 2 ND SEPTEMBER,2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! '# ) (V. DURGA RAO) ( . ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 2 ND SEPTEMBER, 2015. K S SUNDARAM. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE