Kamal Chandramohan , Chennai V. Income Tax Officer Ward-14(5), Bangalore

ITA 3290/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7156 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D KIRAN
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 3290 /BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 12 SHRI KAMAL CHANDRAMOHAN, APARTMENT G-G1, JANANI RAGHAV ENCLAVE, SEMMANCHERI, ALAMARAM, CHENNAI 600 119. PAN: ASTPK7597D VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14 (5), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D. KIRAN, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 0 3 .01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11 . 01 .201 9 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)-12, BANGALORE DATED 19.01.2018 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) ON THE FA CTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE IS CONTRARY T O THE FACTS AND IS OPPOSED TO LAW. THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES ARE ARBITRARY, ERRONEOUS, WITHOUT PROPER REASONS, INVAL ID AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN ASSE SSING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN TOTAL CREDIT FROM FORM 26A.S AND INCOME RETURNED AS RS 7,81,774 AND TREATED IT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME . THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE TOTAL CREDIT U/S 192 IN FORM 26AS WAS RS 3,52,914 AND GROSS SALARY AS PER FORM 1 6A BEING RS 5,88,190 THE ERRONEOUS ASSESSMENT WAS FURTHER UPHEL D BY THE LD CIT APPEALS. 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) HAS WRONGLY AND ARBITRARILY ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCO ME OF YOUR APPELLANT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT YOUR AP PELLANT INCURRED INTEREST ON LOAN AGAINST THE SAID FIXED DEPOSITS WH ICH WAS EQUAL TO THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST EARNED ON SUCH DEPOSIT. THE LD A SSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD CIT APPEALS DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDE RATION OF THE FACT THAT SUCH INTEREST WAS EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHICH W AS WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EARNING INTEREST ON SUCH DEPOSIT. Y OUR APPELLANT IS RELYING ON RAJKUMARI AGARWAL V DCIT, CIRCLE -2, AGR A (AGRA TRIB ITA NO. 3290/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 )2014 ITL 582 [2014]150 ITD 597 FOR THIS FACT. 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WENT WRONG IN DISA LLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF RS 26,280 CLAIMED UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE INCOME ACT FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE WHERE AS IT IS EVIDENCED IN TH E FORM OF PROVIDENT FUND CONTRIBUTION SUBMITTED FROM THE FORM 16. THE L EARNED CIT [APPEALS] HAS TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE PURPO SE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TAXING AUTHORITIE S IS TO ASSESS CORRECTLY THE TAX LIABILITY OF AN ASSESSEE IN ACCOR DANCE WITH THE LAW WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN NTPC VS CI T AS REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS T HAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 23,77,930/- MADE IN RESPECT OF SALARY INCOME SH OULD BE DELETED. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 03.01.2019 AND THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO ASSESSEE BY RPAD ON 10.12.2018 ON THE A DDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO. 36. THE NOTICE HAS NOT CO ME BACK UNSERVED. HENCE THE SERVICE OF THE NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE IS PRESUMED AND IN SPITE OF THIS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON TH E APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. 03.01.2019 AND HENCE, THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS HEARD EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR OF R EVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALTHOUGH APPEARED BEFORE THE AO BUT THE REQUIRED DETAILS WERE NOT FIL ED BEFORE AO AND HENCE, THE AO WAS COMPELLED TO PASS THE ORDER U/S. 144 OF IT ACT. BEFORE CIT (A) ALSO, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN PARA 4 OF HIS ORDER, IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT FIVE DATES OF HEARING WERE FIX ED BY CIT(A) ON 25.07.2016, 14.10.2016, 27.01.2017, 16.05.2017 AND 11.01.2018 AND ON NONE OF THESE DATES, ANYBODY ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE APPEARED BEFORE CIT(A). EVEN NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. THEREFORE LD. CIT (A) PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO, THE NOTICE OF HE ARING WAS SERVED BY RPAD BUT NONE APPEARED ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEA RING AND THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT ALSO. I ALSO FIND THAT ONL Y ONE ADDITION WAS MADE OF RS. 7,81,774/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN SALARY I NCOME AS PER FORM NO. 26AS AND AS PER RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE AO HAS NOTED IN PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT AS PER FORM NO. 26AS, THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 3290/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 HAS RECEIVED INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 13,65,026/ - BUT AS PER THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE INCOME DISCLOSED I.E. BEFORE CHAPTER VIA DEDUCTION IS ONLY RS. 5,83,252/- AND HENCE, THE AO NOTED THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE OF RS. 7,81,774/-. ONE MORE ADDITION WA S MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 10,12,905/- BEING INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM FD IN FEDERAL BANK. IT WAS NOTED BY AO THAT THE ASSESSEE DOES NO T DISCLOSE THIS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HIM BUT BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL, NO ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED REGARDING THIS ADDITION OF RS. 10,12,905/-. ONE MORE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO REGARDING CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE AS DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF RS. 26,280/-. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS NOTED BY THE AO IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF MATERIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM, THIS DEDUCTION IS DISALLOWED . SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD BEFORE CIT(A) OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS, I FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. HENCE I DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 11 TH JANUARY, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.