C.M.Radhakrishnan Nair, Trivandrum V. ACIT, Trivandrum

ITA 30/COCH/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4412 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-05-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T J VINCENTJR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN & SHRI SANJAY ARORA I.T.A.NO.30/COCH/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2006-07 SHRI CM RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, TRIVANDRUM. PA NO.AAFPC-5345L VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), TRIVANDRUM. (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY SHRI MATHEW JOSEPH RESPONDENT BY SHRI TJ VINCENT,JR.DR O R D E R PER N.VIJAYAKUMARAN,J.M: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, TRIVANDRUM, DATED 26-1 1-2009. THE ASSESSEE IS A RETIRED CIVIL SERVANT WAS WORKING WITH ASIANET COMMUNICATIONS. 2. THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY AND OTHE R SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION UNDE R THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 OF THE I.T.ACT , 1961. IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGHOUT TH E PROCEEDINGS THAT THIS ADDITION UNDER THE HEAD UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT WAS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE INCOME RETU RNED, ITA NO. 30/COCH/2010 2 RECEIPTS OF NON-TAXABLE INCOME LIKE P.F, LIC, ETC, WHICH WAS DETAILED OUT IN THE STATEMENTS OF CASH FLOW, BUT TH E ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE SAME. FURTHER, THE ASSETS AND LIABILITIES STATEMENT SHOWI NG THE MARKET VALUE OF THE SHARES, WAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AUTHORITIES. THE INCREASE IN ASSETS, CASH FLOW STA TEMENTS, COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS, ETC. WAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED. IN FACT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE WOULD SUBMIT AND PRAYED FOR ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY AS THIS CASE WAS NOT PROPERLY DEFENDED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES. THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CURRENT ASS ETS AS WELL AS THE INVESTMENTS IN PPD APARTMENTS, ETC. WER E NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS THE DATES OF HEARING GIVEN WERE ONLY TWO DAYS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIA TED THE DETAILS FILED WITHIN THE SHORT TIME. IT WAS THE C ONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS GIVEN ALONG WITH THE ASSET PO SITION AND THE INCREASE IN ASSETS AND DETAILING THE SOURC E FOR THE INCREASE IN THE ASSET VALUE WERE NOT PROPERLY APPRE CIATED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. THE MARKET VALUE OF T HE SHARES WAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R, WHO HAS TAKEN THE ACTUAL COST FOR THE PURPOSE OF TREATI NG IT AS ITA NO. 30/COCH/2010 3 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. OVER AND ABOVE, THE LD. C OUNSEL PRAYED FOR AN OPPORTUNITY FOR PUT FORTHING THE CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON A RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY OBJECTE D FOR GRANTING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY AVAILED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BUT HAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTME NTS. THEREFORE, IT WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN TS U/S.69 WHICH IS JUSTIFIED, IS THE ARGUMENT OF THE L D. JR.D.R. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE PRECEDE NTS. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ENTIRE MATERIALS, WE FIND THAT THE RE WAS CLEAR ABSENCE OF DEFENCE ON THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSE E IN PROJECTING THE CASE, REGARDING THE IMPUGNED ADDITIO N UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY HAS TO BE PROVID ED TO THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO ENABLE HIM TO PUT FORTH THE CASE. THEREFORE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASID E THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO CO-OPE RATE WITH ITA NO. 30/COCH/2010 4 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SHOULD NOT DELAY THE PROC EEDINGS AND WHATEVER DETAILS THAT MAY BE ASKED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER, AS AGREED BY THE LD. COUNSEL BEFORE US, SH OULD BE PRODUCED WELL IN ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER S O AS TO ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ITS PROPER PERSPECTIVE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.VIJAYKUMARAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER ERNAKULAM, DATED THE 05 TH MAY,2010. PM. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI CM RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR, 10B,PPD APARTMENTS, KURAVANKONAM, TRIVANDRUM-3. 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE-1(1), TRIVANDRUM. 3. CIT(A)-I, TRIVANDRUM. 4. CIT, TRIVANDRUM. 5. D.R.