ACIT, Thanjavur V. Shri R.Subramanian, Vedaranyam

ITA 369/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52009 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A C JOSEPH SR
• Assessee Lawyers: S SATHIASEELAN
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 369/MDS/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE I, THANJAVUR. (APPELLANT) V. SHRI R. SUBRAMANIAN, SENGANTHALAI ROAD, VEDARANYAM. PAN : AAMPS0640J (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.C. JOSEPH, SR .AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. SATHIASEELAN, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 09.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.11.2011 O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 14.12.2010 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS), TIRUCHIRAPALLI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. I.T.A. NO. 369/MDS/11 2 2. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEA L IS THAT THE LD. CIT ACCEPTED FRESH EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AN A FFIDAVIT OF TH PARTNERS OF THE FIRM CONFIRMING THEIR WORKING CAPIT AL SUBSCSRIPTION TO THE FIRM INITIALLY AND THEREBY DELETING THE ADDI TION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE FOLLOWING HEADS: DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURES 1 ,29,386 CREDIT IN SAVINGS ACCOUNT WITH CUB 30,40,018 CREDIT IN CURRENT ACCOUNT WITH CUB 1,91,671 INTEREST INCOME FROM SAVING BANK ACCOUNT 20,18 8 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT OF THE PARTNERS WHICH WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE OBSERVE FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT THAT THE LD. CIT HAD NOT I.T.A. NO. 369/MDS/11 3 CONFRONTED THIS AFFIDAVIT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE DEL ETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN OUR CON SIDERED OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD ALSO BE ALLOWED OPPORT UNITY FOR VERIFYING THE AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE PARTNERS OF T HE FIRM. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER VERIFICATION O F THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIR ECTED TO FILE THE AFFIDAVIT AS WELL AS OTHER EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AND WHEN CALLED UPON BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO DO SO. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. HENCE THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. I.T.A. NO. 369/MDS/11 4 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HE ARING ON 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 9 TH NOVEMBER, 2011. VL COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A), TIRUCHIRAPALLI (4) CIT-II, TIRUCHIRAPALLI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE