Teresa Kuriakose Pattry, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 278/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4929 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 50C; 54F; 148

Judgement Text

, ' ' , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . , ! . , & ! ' BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI. G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 278/MDS/2014 /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SMT. TERESA KURIAKOSE PATTRY, NO. 6, BALFOUR ROAD, KELLYS, CHENNAI - 600 010. [ PAN: AGUPP 3783D] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -XIV, CHENNAI - 600 034. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, CA -.) * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT * /DATE OF HEARING : 05.01.2017 * /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.04.2017 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VII, IN ITA NO. 970/13-14 DATE D 27.11.2013 PASSED U/S. 143 R.W.S. 147 AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. ITA NO. 278 / MDS/2014 :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. TIME BARRED ASSESSMENT:- THE CIT APPEALS ERRED IN NOT PASSING A SPEAKING OR DER ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARGUED BEFORE HIM, AS NOTICE U/S 148 FOR THE AY 2005 - 06 WAS SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON 04.04.2012, BEYOND T HE 6 YEAR TIME FOR ISSUING NOTICE. 2. REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER:- THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEALS OBSERVED THAT NO CLAIM S WAS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VALUATION CELL REFERENCE FOR REJECTING THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL MADE TO HIM, IS AGAINST NATURAL JUSTICE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AWARE THAT THERE IS A PROVISION FOR VALUATION CELL REFERE NCE AND IT IS OBLIGATORY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REFER THIS MATTER TO VALUA TION CELL WHEN THERE IS A DISPUTE IN THE MARKET VALUE. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- 1. K.K.NAG LTD V ACIT, ITAT PUNE BENCH 'A'. 2. JUMROMAL VALRAMAL JHAMTANI, PUNE VS ACIT, ITAT PUNE. 3. SUNIL JAIN VS CIT (APPEALS) - XXV NEW DELHI, I TAT DELHI. 3. DEDUCTION OF LOAN REPAYMENT(RS.21 LAKHS):- THE CONTENTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A PPEALS) ON DISALLOWING RS.21 LAKHS PAID ON ONE TIME SETTLEMENT TO STATE BA NK OF INDIA TO RELEASE THE MORTGAGE CHARGE, WITH WHICH THE PROPERTY WAS PU RCHASED BY ASSESSEE IN 1995 WAS ERRONEOUS AND UNJUSTIFIABLE AND AGAINST SE C.48(1)(A)(I). THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT APPEALS SHOULD HAVE RELIE D ON THE FACT THAT THE ITA NO. 278 / MDS/2014 :- 3 -: PROPERTY CANNOT BE SOLD WITHOUT DISCHARGING THE CHA RGE ON THE PROPERTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) SHOULD HAVE REALISED THAT THE CHARGE ON THE PROPERTY WAS IN EXI STENCE WHILE PURCHASING THE PROPERTY IN 1995. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOL LOWING DECISION:- 1. THRESIAMMA ABRAHAM VS INCOME TAX OFFICER ITAT COCHI N BENCH, ITA NO.651/COCH/1990. 4. STAMP DUTY PAID:- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE INDEXED COST OF STAMP DUTY PAID AT THE TIME OF PURC HASE TO THE TUNE OF RS.3,98,190/-. THE FACT WAS ARGUED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND CIT APPEALS. IN SEC.48(II), THE COST OF ACQUISITION IS INCLUSIVE OF THE VALUE OF STAMP DUTY PAID AND ELIGIBLE FOR INDEXATION. 5. MUNICIPAL TAX PAID - RS.2,36,610/- :- THE ACTION OF CIT APPEALS IN DISALLOWING THE MUNIC IPAL TAX PAID ON PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF SALE IS UNJUSTIFIABLE, AS SEC.48(I) ALLOWS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER OF PROPERT Y. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL) HAS NOT REALISED THAT THE PROPE RTY CANNOT BE SOLD WITH LOCAL TAX LIABILITY. 6. CLAIM U/S 54F :- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEAL) ERRED IN INTERPRETING THE PROVISION OF SEC.54F AND NOT REALISED THE REAL INTE NTION OF THE LEGISLATION. THE ITA NO. 278 / MDS/2014 :- 4 -: CONCESSION U/S. 54F WAS INTRODUCED TO CREATE RESIDE NTIAL UNITS, THUS SHOWING OVERALL PROGRESS OF THE NATION. THE ACTION OF THE C IT APPEALS IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE, AS THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN NEW RE SIDENTIAL PROPERTY TO THE TUNE OF RS.81,98,688/- IN OCTOBER 2007, WITHIN THE PERIOD OF 3 YEARS. RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISION:- 1. NIPUN MEHROTRA VS ACIT, ITAT BANGALORE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE CLAIM, THE CIT APPE ALS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING RS.9,18,214/-, WHICH WAS INVESTED IN NEW RESIDENTIA L PROPERTY ON PROGRESSIVE MANNER UPTO 31ST JULY 2005, DUE DATE FO R FILING OF RETURN. SUMMARY OF DECISIONS ON WHICH THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 1. K.K.NAG LTD V ACIT, ITAT PUNE BENCH 'A'. 2. JUMROMAL VALRAMAL JHAMTANI, PUNE VS ACIT, ITAT PUNE. 3. SUNIL JAIN VS CIT (APPEALS) - XXV NEW DELHI, IT AT DELHI 4. THRESIAMMA ABRAHAM VS INCOME TAX OFFICER IT AT COCHIN BENCH, ITA NO.651/COCH/1990. 5. NIPUN MEHROTRA VS ACIT, ITAT BANGALORE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR HAS NOT PRESS ED THE GROUND NO. 1, 4 AND 5 AND MADE ENDORSEMENT AND ARE DISMISSED. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAVING INCOM E FROM SALARY, RENTAL INCOME AND INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD INDUS TRIAL PLOT FOR RS. 66,68,291/- ITA NO. 278 / MDS/2014 :- 5 -: AND WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED AND LD. AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE, TH E ASSESSEE FILED THE LETTER TO TREAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 02.08.2005 AS C OMPLIANCE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED THE INFORMATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXECUTED TWO SA LE DEEDS IN RESPECT OF INDUSTRIAL PLOT ON 02.03.2005 FOR RS. 10,00,000/- A ND RS. 40,00,000/- AND THE ENTIRE CONSIDERATION AGGREGATING TO RS. 50,00,000/- AND CLAIMED SUM OF RS. 60,000/- AS SELLING EXPENSES AND INDEXED COST OF LA ND RS. 3,67,260/- FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO CLAIMED BANK LIABILITY OF RS. 21,00,0 00/- AND MUNICIPAL TAX AND WORKED OUT LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AND CLAIMED EXEM PTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT ON INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY AND DEPOSITED RS. 15,0 0,000/- IN CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT ON 08.04.2005. THE LD. AO FOUND THE MARKET VALUE OF THE REGISTERED PROPERTY OF RS. 10 LAKHS IS RS. 23,72,390/- AND WHE REAS FOR RS. 40 LAKHS THE VALUE IS RS. 66,68,140/-. THE LD. AO APPLIED THE PROVISI ONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AND CONSIDERED THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AS RS. 90,40,530/- AS AGAINST RS. 50,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. AND IN RESPE CT OF DISCHARGE OF BANK LIABILITY OF RS. 21 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AS COST ACQUISITION AND RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL DECISION, WHERE LOAN IS INHERITED CAN BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THE PROPERTY TAX PAID CANNO T BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION AND WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TOTAL COST AT RS. 82,14,167/- AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD INDUSTRIAL SHED AND INVESTED IN RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT, WHEREAS, THE LD. AO HAS APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF THE ACT AN D ALLOWED EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15,00,000/- DEPOSITED IN ITA NO. 278 / MDS/2014 :- 6 -: CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME AND WORKED OUT TAXABLE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS. 68,56,826/- REFERRED AT PAGE 3 OF THE ORDER AND MADE ADDITIONS TO THE RETURNED INCOME AND ASSESSED INCOME OF RS. 69,84,95 0/- AND PASSED ORDER U/S. 143 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT DATED 02.01.2013. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A N APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). WHEREAS, CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED TH E FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C AND 54F OF THE ACT AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION AND LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO REFER TO THE VALUATION CELL AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE THE CLA IM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF MARKET VALUE. CONSIDERING TH E FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CLAIM AFTER THE ASSESSMENT AND RS. 21 LAKHS PA ID TO DISCHARGE THE LOAN IS NO WHERE CONNECTED WITH THE TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AN D THEREFORE NO EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSFER O F PROPERTY. WHEREAS, THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED ONLY RS. 15 LAKHS BEFORE DUE U/S. 139(1) IN CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNTS SCHEME AND THE SAME WAS ALLOWED AS DEDUCTI ON U/S. 54F OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, TH E LD. CIT(A) RELIED ON THE JUDICIAL AND TRIBUNAL DECISIONS AND DISMISSED THE A PPEAL. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE CIT(A) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH TRIBUNAL. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE LD . CIT(A) IS NOT CORRECT IN MAKING THE OBSERVATIONS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT M ADE CLAIM AS THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 278 / MDS/2014 :- 7 -: WAS NOT AWARE OF PROVISIONS OF VALUATION. THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED TO THE VALUATION CELL AS THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN SRO VA LUE AND SUPPORTED WITH JUDICIAL DECISIONS. FURTHER, THE LD. AO AS DISALLOWED THE C LAIM OF RS. 21 LAKHS PAID AS ONE TIME SETTLEMENT TO BANK OF INDIA FOR MORTGAGE LOAN DISCHARGE. WHEREAS, THE SAID PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY ASSESSEE IN 1995 AND THE PROPERTY CANNOT BE SOLD WITHOUT DISCHARGING THE DUES TO BANK AND THE MORTGA GE CHARGE WAS CREATED IN THE YEAR 1995. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IN TERPRETING THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND RESTRICTED THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE AC T TO THE EXTENT OF INVESTMENT IN CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME, IRRESPECTIVE OF TH E FACT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED LIBERAL LY THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INVESTED TOTAL NET CONSIDERATION IN CAPITAL GAIN AC COUNT SCHEME BUT COMPLIED THE CONDITIONS OF 54F OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR FILED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, WHIC H WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE AND COULD NOT BE PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OR APPELLATE AUTHORITIES AND FOR THE FIRST TIME THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS B EING FILED AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT DATED 12.10.2016 UNDER RULE 10 OF I NCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES IN RESPECT OF CLAIM OF BANK LIABILITY FROM TH E SALE CONSIDERATION. THE LD. AR PRAYED FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND AL LOW THE APPEAL. CONTRA, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S AND OPPOSED TO THE FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT PLACED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND FOR THE FI RST TIME, THE ASSESSEE IS MAKING THE CLAIM BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND FILED WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDERS OF CIT(A). ITA NO. 278 / MDS/2014 :- 8 -: 6. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THE LD. AR AT THE TIME OF HEAR ING FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES WITH THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION UNDER DEBT RECOVERY TRIBUNAL AT CHENNAI FILED BY STATE BANK OF INDIA AGAINST THE M/S. EVERTAUT STEEL PVT. LTD. AND CHARG E WAS CREATED AND REGISTERED BY COMPANY, THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND SU PPORTIVE PROOF TO CLAIM THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR EXPLAINE D THAT THESE DOCUMENTS ARE VERY MUCH NECESSARY TO DECIDE THE CASE AND FOR ALLO WABILITY OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 21 LAKHS PAID TO DISCHARGE THE BANK LIABILITY. FUR THER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD THE PROPERTY AND RECEIVED ONLY RS. 50 LAKHS AS SALE CON SIDERATION AND ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C OF TH E ACT AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE MATTER SHOULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE DVO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN T HERE IS A DISPUTED ON THE MARKET RATES AND ACTUAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED. TH E ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED RS. 15 LAKHS IN THE CAPITAL GAIN ACCOUNT SCHEME AND THE LD. AO ALLOWED THE EXEMPTION U/S. 54F OF THE ACT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15 LAKHS. THE LD. AR SUPPORTED THE SUBMISSIONS WITH THE JUDICIAL AND THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL, WHERE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSES SEE IN CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, EVEN AFTER THE DUE DATE AND H AS COMPLIED THE CONDITIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF BANK LIABILITY OF RS. 21 LAKHS DREW ATTENTION TO THE PAG E 10 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHERE THE COMPANY HAS OBTAINED MEDIUM TERM LOAN OF RS. 14,50,000/- AND THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE PERSONAL GUARANTOR ALONG WITH OTHER TWO GUARANTORS. SIMILARLY, UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF COMPANIES ACT, THE CHARGE ITA NO. 278 / MDS/2014 :- 9 -: WAS CREATED BY THE COMPANY ON THE SAID PROPERTY AS TERM LOAN REFERRED AT PAGE 27 AND 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THESE VITAL FACTS W ERE NOT EXAMINED OR NOT AVAILABLE TO AO. THE LD. AR FURTHER PRAYED THAT TH E MATTER MAY BE REMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND LD. AR FURTHER SUBSTANTIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED THE CO NDITIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AND ALSO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139(4) OF THE AC T ON INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND SUPPORTED WITH THE JUDICIA L DECISIONS ON SECTION 50C OF THE ACT, MORTGAGE PAYMENT AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 54F OF THE ACT AS UNDER: 1. APPADURAI VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JCIT [2014] 369 ITR 486(MAD) 2. APPADURAI VIJAYARAGHAVAN V JCIT IN ITA NO.765/ MDS/2013 - CHENNAI ITAT 3. RM. ARUNAEHALAM ETE V CIT [1997] 227 ITR 222 ( SC) 20 - 31 4. V.S.M.RJAGADISHEHANDRAN (DEED) BY LRS V CIT [19 97] 227 ITR 240 (SC) 5. FATHIMA BAI V ITO [2009]32 DTR 243 (KAR) 6. CIT V RAJESH KUMAR JALAN [20061 286 ITR 274 (G AU) 7. NIPUN MEHROTRA V ACIT [2008]110 ITD 520 (BANQ) 8. JAGAN NATH SINGH LODHA V ITO [2004] 85 TTJ (JO DH) 173 9. CIT V JAGRITI AOARWAL [20111 339 ITR 610 (P&H) 10 MADHUVAN PRASAD V ITO IN ITA NO.2485/MDS /2004 - CHENNAI ITAT 11. A.C.SHYAMSUNDAR V JCIT IN ITA NO.2279/MDS/2015 DATED 06.05.2016 - CHENNAI ITAT 12. Y.MALAVIZHI V ITO [2014] 41 CCH 351 CHEN TRIB 13. R K. P. ELAYARAJAN V DCIT [2012] 52 SOT 159 (CHENNAI) 14. ITO V RETTANAI GOVINDAN MUNUSWAMY IN ITA NO.10 85/MDS/2016 - CHENNAI ITAT 15. P.SANKARAN V ITO IN ITA NO.1167 / MDS/2016 - CHENNAI ITAT' AND PRAYED FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AN D ALLOW THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 278 / MDS/2014 :- 10 -: 6.1 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIM OF DEDU CTION OF RS. 21 LAKHS FROM THE SALE CONSIDERATION DUE TO DISCHARGE OF BANK LIABILI TY. THE LD. DR REFERRED TO PAGE 9 OF THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHERE TH E BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY WAS ORIGINALLY CARRIED ON BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM I N THE NAME OF EVERTAUT INDUSTRIES AND THE COMPANY TOOK OVER ALL THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES OF PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN 1989 AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO A GUARANTOR TO THE PROPERTY AND LOAN WAS OBTAINED. THE LD. DR FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUP PORTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN AND OBJECTED TO THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WHEREAS, THE STATE BANK OF INDIA IN DRT HAS INITIATED ACTION AGAINST T HE COMPANY AND NOT THE FIRM AND THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE FOR PAYMENT TO STATE BAN K OF INDIA AS PER THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PAPER BO OK AND ALSO ON THE DATE OF SALE THERE ARE ENCUMBRANCES ON THE PROPERTY. THE L D. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THE RE IS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES AND NO OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE DOCUMENTS. WE FOUND THERE IS ST RENGTH IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR, THE DOCUMENTS FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE PLAY A VITAL ROLE IN DECIDING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACTS, MATERIAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS. WE REMIT THE DISPUT ED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY AND EXAMINE THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH WITH SPEAKING ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE S HOULD BE PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER ON MERITS. ITA NO. 278 / MDS/2014 :- 11 -: 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF APRIL , 2017 AT CHENNAI. /CHENNAI, 3 /DATED: 5TH APRIL, 2017. JPV * -&56 76 /COPY TO: 1. ) /APPELLANT 2. -.) /RESPONDENT 3. 8 ( )/CIT(A) 4. 8 /CIT 5. 6 -&& /DR 6. /GF SD/- ( . ) ( ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - ( . ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) $ /JUDICIAL MEMBER