M.SHANTHI, CHENNAI V. DCIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), CHENNAI

ITA 3033/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7732 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M SRINIVASA RAO CIT
• Assessee Lawyers: R S BALAJI

Judgement Text

, SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D/SMC BENCH: CHENNAI , , ( BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3033/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SMT.M.SHANTHI , NEW NO.11,ARUMUGAM STREET, PERAMBUR,CHENNAI 600 082. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 10(1), M.G.ROAD,NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 034. [ PAN: ARBPS 3567 Q ] ( * /APPELLANT) ( +,* /RESPONDENT) * - / APPELLANT BY : MR.R.S.BALAJI,ADVOCATE +,* - /RESPONDENT BY : MR.M.SRINIVASA RAO,C.I.T D.R - /DATE OF HEARING : 14.10.2019 - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.10.2019 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-12, CHENNAI, I N ITA NO.213///C.I.T(A)-12/2013-14 DATED 29.08.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. MR.R.S.BALAJI REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE, AND MR.M.SRINIVASA RAO REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REV ENUE. ITA NO.3033/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT IN THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD QUESTIONED T HE SOURCE FOR THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF HOUSE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASS ESSEE HAD GIVEN ALL THE DETAILS TO HER AUDITOR, BUT THE DETAILS HAD NOT BEE N PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE AUDITOR HAD EXPIRED IN THE MONTH OF OCTOBER, 2012. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNA BLE TO GET THE DETAILS FROM THE OFFICE OF THE EXPIRED AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE OF ASSESSEE, LATE MR.LOKAIYA, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH ALL THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.13,07,500/- REPRESENTING THE PAST SA VINGS AND FAMILY SAVINGS. IT WAS A FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD MANAGED TO COLLECT THE OLD PASS BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH W OULD PROVE THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THESE WERE OF THE YEAR 2004 WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED IN THE YEAR 2013. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OBJECTION, IF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THIS APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER GIVING ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE OR DERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD.CIT(A). ITA NO.3033/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT AS THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND HAS GIVEN REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIABLE CAUSE FOR THE SAME, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. THE LIBERTY IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL T HE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS, EVIDENCES AND OTHER DETAILS AS ARE REQUIRED TO PROV E HER CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSIO N OF HEARING ON THE 14 TH OCTOBER, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED: 14 TH OCTOBER, 2019. K S SUNDARAM - +56 76 /COPY TO: 1. * /APPELLANT 4. 8 /CIT 2. +,* /RESPONDENT 5. 6 + /DR 3. 8 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF