T.Kodeeswaran L/H A.Thangam, Srivilliputhur V. ITO Ward 1(4), Virudhunagar

ITA 2901/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2821 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 1996-1997
• Appeal Filed On: 15-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ., # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / I.T.A. NOS.2901 TO 2903/CHNY/2018 '' /ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1996-97 TO 1998-99 SHRI T.KODEESWARAN, L/H OF LATE A.THANGAM 39-A, DEVANGAR SOUTH STREET, SRIVILLIPUTHUR-626 125. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(4), VIRUDHUNAGAR. PAN: AJIPK4320J ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : NONE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL.CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 27.02.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.02.2019 / O R D E R PER S.JAYARAMAN, AM: THE ASSESSEE FILED THESE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-1, MADURAI, IN ITA NO. 132, 133, 134/2009-10 DATED 25.09.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1998-99. 2. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO CURE THE FOLLOWING DEFECTS IN HIS APPEALS:- I) ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) NOT FILED. II) GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) NOT FILED. 2 ITANO.2901 TO 2903/CHNY/2018 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CURED THE ABOVE DEFEC TS. THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 19. 12.2018 AND THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT IS PLACED ON RECORD, NONE APPEARED FROM THE ASSESSEES SIDE. HENCE, THESE APPEALS DESERVE TO BE DISMISSED IN LIMINE . HOWEVER, THESE APPEALS ARE ALSO DECIDED ON MERIT AS UNDER. 3. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE IN AL L THESE APPEALS IS DENIAL OF DEDUCTION REPRESENTING INTERES T ON THE BORROWED CAPITAL WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR INVESTMENT IN THE FIRM TOWARDS SHARE CAPITAL. ORIGINALLY, THE ASSESSE E FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THOSE APPEALS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO FILE DETAIL S OF CREDITORS INCLUDING THE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE LOANS WERE RECEIVED AND T HE CLAIM OF LOAN WAS NOT GENUINE AND IT WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLAIMING INTEREST. THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED THE CORR ESPONDING ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE WENT ON APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDERS DATED 20.10.2008 IN ITA NOS.2111 TO 2113/MDS/2007 DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIV E ONE MORE CHANCE TO THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE AND ALSO DIRE CTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS ORDER AFTER GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTU NITY TO THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. CONSEQUEN TLY, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE 3 ITANO.2901 TO 2903/CHNY/2018 TOWARDS THE CLAIM OF CREDIT OF RS.2,00,000/- AND TO GIVE FULL DETAILS OF NAME AND ADDRESSES OF PERSONS AND GENUINITY OF THE CREDITS. THE APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH ANY REPLY AND WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO PROVE IT, EXCEPT THE LIST CONTAINING ONLY NAME AND ALLEGED AM OUNT CLAIMED. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE APP ELLANT AND INTEREST OF RS.48,000/- WAS DISALLOWED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 1996-97, 1997-98 & 1998-99, RESPECTIVELY. THE APPELLANT FILED APPEA LS AGAINST THOSE ORDERS (CONSEQUENTIAL ORDERS) BEFORE THE CIT(A). S INCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANT IATE THEIR CLAIM DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, LD.CIT(A) RECORDE D A FINDING THAT HE HAS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED THESE APPEALS WITH THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE C.I.T APPEALS -I, MADURAI DATED 25.09.2018 UNDER ITA NO : 132, 133&134/2009-10 IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT APPEALS FAILED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE A.O HAS SMALL FILED TO GIVE WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE AS PER LETTER DATED 22.0 6.2004 AND 18.09.2009 SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS PAYMENTS OF INTE REST RS.48,000/- ON BORROWED CAPITAL INTRODUCED INTO THE FIRM, WHICH HA D BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE A.O, IN RESPECT OF CREDITS. 3. THE CIT APPEALS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT TH E A.O HAD NOT OFFERED REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO OFFER EXPLANATION BY THE APPELLANT AND PASSED ORDER AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND SO ALSO BEFORE THE CIT APPEALS MADURAI. 4. THE CIT APPEALS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT TH E APPELLANT HAD ADMITTED AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THEIR RETURN OF INCOME DURIN G ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-1997 AND 1997-98 RESPECTIVELY RS.2,25,815, RS. 2,42,500 AND WHICH HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TOWARDS APPLICATION OF FUNDS BY THE APPELLANT TOWARDS 4 ITANO.2901 TO 2903/CHNY/2018 OTHER INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT WHICH FACT THE A. O HAS NEGLECTED AND REVIED UNWARRANTED ADDITION OF RS.48,000/-(IN RESPE CT OF INTEREST ON CREDIT) AND WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CANCELLED BY THE CIT A PPEALS. THE LD.DR SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD N OT FURNISH ANY MATERIAL IN HIS SUPPORT EVEN AFTER THE TRIBUNAL AFF ORDED OPPORTUNITY, THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) BE CONFIRMED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR AND GONE THROUGH THE ORD ERS OF LD.CIT(A). IT IS CLEAR THAT ON EARLIER OCCASION, TH E LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THOSE APPEALS AND THIS TRIBUNAL GAVE ONE MORE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HIS CASE. EVEN DURING THE COURS E OF SECOND OPPORTUNITY ALSO , SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TOWARDS THE CLAIM OF CREDIT OF RS.2,00,000 /- AND TO GIVE FULL DETAILS OF NAME AND ADDRESS OF PERSONS AND GENUINEN ESS OF THE CREDITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF INTEREST OF RS.48,000/- IN EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 TO 1998-99, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD.CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND HENCE ALL THESE APPEA LS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97, 1997-98 AND 1998 -99 ARE DISMISSED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ABOVE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SEE ARE DISMISSED. 5 ITANO.2901 TO 2903/CHNY/2018 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) (S.JAYARAMAN) ( ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) /CHENNAI, $ /DATED 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2019 SOMU () *) /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. + () /CIT(A) 4. + /CIT 5. ) / /DR 6. 2 /GF