R.Selvanayagam @ Sundar, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2881/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 288121714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 14-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRPATHLAVETH PERYACIT
• Keywords: Depreciation; Difference of opinion
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . , , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2881 /MDS./2014 ( ! '! / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10) SHRI SELVANAYAGAM , NO.24,THIRUMALAI NAGR, ALWARTHIRUNAGAR, CHENNAI 600 087. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD V(1), CHENNAI. PAN CFIPS 0531 P ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) #$ % & / APPELLANT BY : MR.K.MEENAKSHISUNDARAM, IT PRACTIONER '(#$ % & / RESPONDENT BY : MRPATHLAVETH PERYA,CIT, D.R ) * % +, / DATE OF HEARING : 14.05.2015 -' % +, /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.07.2015 / O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH DELAY O F 185 DAYS, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ITA NO.2881 /MDS/2014 2 CHENNAI DATED 07.03.2014 IN C.NO.10502(67)/2011-12/ X PASSED UNDER SEC.263 READ WITH SECTION SEC. 250 OF THE AC T. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CONDONATION PETITION STATING HIS PLIGHT OF HEAVY DEBTS MOUNTED WITH FAMILY MARITAL PROBLEMS WHICH LEAD TO THIS DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE DILEMMA OF THE ASSESSEE THIS BENCH HAS DECIDED TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND PROCEEDED TO HEAR THE APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED EIGHT ELABORATE GROUNDS IN HIS APPEAL, HOWEVER THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE A SSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT WHEREIN HE DI RECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE CLAIM ED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE ESTIMATED INCOME AND ALSO TO VERI FY THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, ENGAGED IN THE PROFESSION AS CAMERA ENGINEER, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME AS ` 2,28,593/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY TO EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 18.24 LAKHS AND ALSO PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY . THEREAFTER ITA NO.2881 /MDS/2014 3 THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 30.12.2 011 WHEREIN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING THE INCOME RETU RNED. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT IN HIS 263 ORDER OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EXAMINE THE GENUI NENESS AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD ADVANCED M ONEY TO HIM. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CALLED FOR THE SO URCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS SAVINGS BANK A/C FOR RS.18.24 LAKHS. 3. SINCE THE INCOME DECLARED IN HIS RETURN OF INCO ME WAS ESTIMATED INCOME, EXPENDITURES & DEPRECIATION CANNOT BE CLAIM ED. 4. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT APPEARED BEFORE HIM DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT. 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. FOR THE AFORE STATED REASON THE LD.CIT IN HIS O RDER DIRECTED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE C LAIMED FROM THE ITA NO.2881 /MDS/2014 4 ESTIMATED INCOME AND ALSO TO VERIFY THE CASH DEPOSI TS, CREDIT- WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF E XAMINING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT AND ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. THEREAFTER, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER EXAMINI NG THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE RESTRAINED F ROM MAKING ANY ADDITION BECAUSE HE WAS SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANAT IONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BANK STATEMENT S, DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND MOVABLE PROPERTY DETAILS OF LOAN AND REPAYMENT OF LOAN, CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND PAN OF T HE CREDITORS BASED ON WHICH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED THE ORDER. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S.263 IS ERRONEOUS AND REQUESTED TO BE QUASHED. LD. D.R ON THE OTHER H AND ARGUED IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT. ITA NO.2881 /MDS/2014 5 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES AND PERUSING THE ASSES SMENT ORDER IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED ALL THE D OCUMENTS AND MATERIALS REQUIRED FOR JUSTIFYING HIS STAND. THE LD . ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS ORDER HAD ALSO MENTIONED THE ASSESSEE HAD PR ODUCED THE DETAILS BEFORE HIM DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS SUCH AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, BANK STATEMENTS, IMMOVABLE PR OPERTY AND MOVABLE PROPERTY, LOAN TRANSACTION AND REPAYMENT OF LOAN, CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND PAN OF THE CREDITORS ETC.. THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT HE HAD SCRUTIN IZED THE DOCUMENTS AND MATERIALS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D ACCEPTED THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE IT IS FOUND TO BE IN ORDER. IN THIS SITUATION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) U/S.263 IS NOT WARRANTED BECAUSE THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE LD.CIT IS A MATTER OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION AND RE-VISIT ON THE SUBJECT. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECI SION OF THE HONORABLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE CIT V/S. SUN BEAM AUTO LTD., WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT IF THERE WAS AN INQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF GIVE OCCASION TO THE LD.CIT TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT, MERELY BECAUSE HE HAS DIFFE RENT OPINION IN THE ITA NO.2881 /MDS/2014 6 MATTER, WE HEREBY QUASH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT PA SSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 10 TH JULY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( N.R.S.GANESAN ) ( . '#$ %' ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 10 TH JULY, 2015. K S SUNDARAM. % '+./ 0 /'+ /COPY TO: 1. #$ /APPELLANT 2. '(#$ /RESPONDENT 3. ) 1+ () /CIT(A) 4. ) 1+ /CIT 5. /4 '+5 /DR 6. 6! 7* /GF