Shri K.Lakshminarayana Rao, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 344/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1037 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P B SEKARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: N MURALI

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH B CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. I.T.A. NO. 344/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SHRI K. LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO, CHAIRMAN & DIRECTOR, NEW WOODLANDS HOTELS PVT. LTD., 75, DR,. RADHAKRISHNAN ROAD, CHENNAI-600 004. V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-IV(4), CHENNAI. (PAN: AAAPL4027A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. MURALI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS)-V, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 393/07-08 DATED 22-01-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. SHRI N. MURALI, CA REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI P.B. SEKARAN, LEARNED CIT-DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF TH E REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THREE CREDITS BEING AN AMOUNT OF ` 1,00,00,000/- FROM SHRI K. VASUDEVA RAO, BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, AN AMOUNT OF ` 11,50,000/- FROM K. I.T.A. NO.344/MDS/2010 2 LAKSHMINARAYANA RAO (HUF) BEING HUF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE IS THE KARTA AND AN AMOUNT OF ` 1,00,000/- FROM SHRI GIRISH WHO IS THE BROTHER-IN- LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD CALLED FOR CONFIRMATION LETTER AND THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED T HE CONFIRMATION LETTERS IN REGARD TO SHRI K. VASUDEVA RAO WHEREIN SHRI VASUDEV A RAO HAD CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY CHEQUE TOWARD S FAMILY SETTLEMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE CLAIM ON THE G ROUND THAT NO OTHER DETAILS LIKE THE COPY OF THE FINAL ACCOUNT OF SHRI K. VASUD EVA RAO WERE FILED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IN REGARD TO THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FR OM THE HUF, THE HUF WAS FILING ITS RETURNS AND THE ASSESSEE WAS THE KARTA O F THE HUF. IN REGARD TO THE RECEIPT FROM SHRI GIRISH IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT AS THERE WAS A DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI GIRISH THE ASSESSEE W AS NOT ABLE TO OBTAIN THE CONFIRMATION LETTER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT NO W THE MATTERS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ABLE TO PRODUCE THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM SHRI GIRISH. IT WAS THE FURTHER SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED CERTAIN DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 28. 12.2007 AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD ALSO BEEN PASSED ON 28.12.2007. IT WAS T HE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE F URTHER DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT IT W AS ONLY DUE TO THE DISPUTES IN THE FAMILY THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ALL THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I.T.A. NO.344/MDS/2010 3 4. IN REPLY, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD N O OBJECTION IF THE ISSUES ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER F OR RE-ADJUDICATION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE ASSESSEE CO-OPERATES IN THE SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS TH E ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED HIS DIFFICULTY IN NOT PRODUCING ALL THE DETAILS BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREP ANCIES, IF ANY, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE CIRC UMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL ARE TO BE RESTORED T O THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSEE SHALL CO -OPERATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFI CER SHALL GIVE THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE IN TH E SET ASIDE PROCEEDINGS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 09/03/2 011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 9 TH MARCH, 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE