J.Prabhu, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 3020/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 302021714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: M KARUPPIAH
• Section: 44AD

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL S M C BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3020/MDS/2014 ! '#! / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI J. PRABHU, NO.14/83, PHASE-III, THIRU NAGAR, VILLIVAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 049. PAN : AMXPP 7624 G V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD XIV(3), CHENNAI - 600 034. (%&/ APPELLANT) ('(%&/ RESPONDENT) %& ) * / APPELLANT BY : SH. M. KARUPPIAH, FCA '(%& ) * / RESPONDENT BY : SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT + ' ) ,- / DATE OF HEARING : 03.07.2015 ./# ) ,- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07.08.2015 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, CHENN AI, DATED 26.09.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. SHRI M. KARUPPIAH, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARDED A CONTRACT FROM M/S OMAYAL ACHI ARUNACHALAM TRUST FOR ` 18,20,201/-. THE SAID TRUST PAID TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER DEDUCTING A SUM OF ` 41,246/-. THE 2 I.T.A. NO.3020/MDS/14 ASSESSEE ENTRUSTED THE MATTER TO TWO INDIVIDUALS AN D PAID ` 17,78,955/- AND OFFERED THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT OF ` 41,246/- FOR TAXATION. HOWEVER, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE WAS DISALLOWED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITI ON OF ` 1,45,617/-. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE IS T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS WITH REGARD TO PAYMENTS M ADE TO INDIVIDUAL SUB-CONTRACTORS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATI VE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED DETAILS ABOUT THE INDIVIDUAL SUB-CONT RACTORS. THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FIL ED ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, BY FOLLOWING T HE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CIT V. MULTIPLAN (I NDIA) PVT. LTD. (38 ITD 320), THE CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF REQUIRED MATERIALS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHE R SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSES SING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SUB-CONTRACTORS ON THE GROUND 3 I.T.A. NO.3020/MDS/14 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS OF THE PAYMENT MADE TO THE SUB-CONTRACTORS, BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ESTIMATED THE INCOME ON THE CONTRACT AT 8% BY APPLYING SECTIO N 44AD OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED T HE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT MADE TO INDIVIDUAL SUB-CONTRACTOR S. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY , THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE. THE ENTIRE IS SUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE DETAILS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 7 TH AUGUST, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 1 /DATED, THE 7 TH AUGUST, 2015. KRI. 4 I.T.A. NO.3020/MDS/14 ) ',23 43#, /COPY TO: 1. %& /APPELLANT 2. '(%& /RESPONDENT 3. + 5, () /CIT(A)-III, CHENNAI-34 4. + 5, /CIT, CHENNAI-III, CHENNAI-34 5. 3'6 ', /DR 6. 7! 8 /GF.