SHEIK MOHIDEEN, TINDIVANAM V. ITO, VILLUPURAM

ITA 3221/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4134 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M S NETHRAPALJCITD R
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKARC A
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH: CHENNAI , , ( BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.3220/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SMT.GULZAR BE , 128,PALLIVASAL STREET, FERUDUOS NAGAR,KOOONIMEDU, TINDIVANAM 604 303. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VILLUPURAM. [ PAN: AZBPG 6161 E ] ( * /APPELLANT) ( +,* /RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.3221/CHNY/2018 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHEIK MOHIDEEN , 128,PALLIVASAL STREET, FERUDUOS NAGAR,KOOONIMEDU, TINDIVANAM 604 303. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, VILLUPURAM. [ PAN: DKHPS 1239 H ] ( * /APPELLANT) ( +,* /RESPONDENT) * - / APPELLANT BY : MR.T.BANUSEKAR,C.A +,* - /RESPONDENT BY : MR.M.S.NETHRAPAL,JCIT,D.R - /DATE OF HEARING : 19.08.2019 - /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.08.2019 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ITA NO.3220/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE, NAMELY, SMT.GULZAR BE, AND ITA NO.3221/CHNY/2018 IS AN APPE AL FILED BY THE ITA NOS.3220 & 3221 /CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: ASSESSEE, NAMELY, SHEIK MOHIDEEN, AGAINST THE SEPAR ATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUDUCHERRY, I N ITA NO.61/C.I.T(A)-PDY/2017-18 DATED & IN ITA NO.60/C. I.T(A)-PDY/2017- 18, DATED 26.09.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 R ESPECTIVELY. 2. MR.T.BANUSEKAR, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE AND MR. M.S.NETHRAPAL REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVE NUE. 3. AS THESE TWO APPEALS ARE RELATED TO HUSBAND AND WIFE AND INTER- CONNECTED, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THI S COMMON ORDER. 4. IT WAS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE, SMT.GULZAR BE AND SHEIK MOHIDEEN HAD DEPOSITED CASH IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS WITH STAT E BANK OF INDIA. SMT.GULZAR BE HAD DEPOSITED RS.55 LAKHS AND SHEIK M OHIDEEN HAD DEPOSITED AROUND RS.45 LAKHS. ON BEING QUESTIONED B Y DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) UNIT 2(1),CHENNAI, ASSES SEES HAD CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD 2.76 ACRES OF INHERITED AGRIC ULTURAL LAND TO SHRI GO.NEELARAM ON 28.04.2011 FOR A SUM OF RS.1,20,00,0 00/- IN CASH. THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN REGISTERED ON 28.04.2011 FOR A C ONSIDERATION OF RS.17,82,000/- ONLY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF T HE SAID CONSIDERATION, ASSESSEE, SHEIK MOHIDEEN HAD DEPOSITED RS.45 LAKHS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT ON 28.04.2011 AND RS.15 LAKHS AND RS.40 LAKHS ON 27 .01.2011 AND 28.04.2011 RESPECTIVELY IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SMT. GULZAR BE, MAINTAINED WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA, KOONIMEDU BRANCH. THE BAL ANCE AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED FOR PURCHASE OF 32 CENT LAND AT ECR KOONIM EDU AND HOUSE CONSTRUCTION. THE ASSESSEE, SHEIK MOHIDEEN HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE SALE DEED WAS SIGNED BY HIM, BUT NOT SIGNED BY THE SAID BUYER SHRI ITA NOS.3220 & 3221 /CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: GO.NEELARAM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE RETRACTED FROM SUCH STATEM ENT AND SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD WORKED IN ABROAD AND HE HAD GIVEN THE S AID AMOUNT OF MONIES TO HIS FRIENDS AND RELATIVES AND THE SAME WAS GENER ATED OUT OF HIS FOREIGN EARNINGS, AS ALSO EARNINGS FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND A ND SALE OF MILK. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED CONFIRMATI ON LETTERS FROM THE VARIOUS PERSONS, BUT THE SAME HAD BEEN REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY STATING THAT IT WAS AN AFTER-THOUGHT. IT WAS A S UBMISSION THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION, IF THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION OF EVIDENCES PRODUCED. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE REJECTED WITH OUT EXAMINATION. 5. IN REPLY, LD.DR SUBMITTED THT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CHANGING HIS STAND, WHICH CLEARLY SHOWED THAT THE FUNDS WERE THE ASSESSEES OWN FUNDS. 6. IN REPLY, LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT ONLY INCOME OF A SSESSEE IS FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SALE OF MILK, AND THE ASSESSE E IS HAVING NO OTHER SOURCE OF INCOME. IF AT ALL THE ASSESSING OFFICER P ROPOSES TO REJECT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MUST SHOW A T LEAST THE SOURCE FROM WHICH COULD HAVE EARNED SUCH LARGE INCOMES. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE ISSUES MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT OR DER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHANGED HIS STAND IN RESPECT OF CA SH DEPOSITS IN HIS BANK ITA NOS.3220 & 3221 /CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED CONFIRMATION LE TTERS AND DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE REVISED STAND TAKEN BY HIM. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED ANY OF THE EVIDENCES, BUT HAS REJECTED THE SAME BY STATING THAT IT IS AN AFTER-THOUGHT, WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE ISSUES RAIS ED IN THESE APPEALS OF HUSBAND AND WIFE ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUAT E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE S, NAMELY SMT.GULZAR BE AND SHEIK MOHIDEEN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSIO N OF HEARING ON THE 19 TH AUGUST, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED: 19 TH AUGUST, 2019. K S SUNDARAM - +56 76 /COPY TO: 1. * /APPELLANT 4. 8 /CIT 2. +,* /RESPONDENT 5. 6 + /DR 3. 8 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF