M.Duraivel, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 370/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9558 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Section: 148; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.370/MDS/2016 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI M. DURAIVEL, 2/156, PONNIAMMAN KOIL STREET, INJAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 041. PAN : AWMPD 2931 R V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD III(3), CHENNAI 600 034. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : NONE ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 12.04.2016 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.05.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-6, CHENNAI , DATED 05.11.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD. TH E REGISTRY HAS 2 I.T.A. NO.370/MDS/16 PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE POSTAL ACKNOWLEDGEME NT. THEREFORE, WE HEARD SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTA L REPRESENTATIVE AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERIT. 3. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT EXAMINING THE NATURE OF LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE, FOUND THAT THE LAND DISPOSED OF BY THE ASSESSEE WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SITUATED BEYOND 8 KMS RADIUS OF THE MUNICIPAL LIMIT. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD THE NATURE OF LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER IN EXERCISE OF HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') FOUND THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WI THOUT ANY DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSE SSEE DEPOSITED A SUM OF ` 2 CRORES IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION RECEIVED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOU ND THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED. ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE WAS ISS UED UNDER 3 I.T.A. NO.370/MDS/16 SECTION 148 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. T HE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND CLAIMED THAT HE SOLD TWO P IECES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR AN AMOUNT OF ` 1,01,20,000/- AND ` 97,60,000/- RESPECTIVELY, BY TWO SALE DEEDS REGISTERED IN THE O FFICE OF THE SUB- REGISTRAR, NEELANKARAI. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HA VE PRODUCED COPIES OF CHITTA-ADANGAL MAINTAINED BY THE STATE GO VERNMENT, TO ESTABLISH THAT THE LAND SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGR ICULTURAL LAND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE WITHOUT ANY DISCUSSION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE COPIES OF CHITTA- ADANGAL SAID TO BE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN THE FILE OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, WE ARE UNABLE TO EXAMINE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LAND BY THE STATE GOV ERNMENT. WITHOUT KNOWING THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LAND, THI S TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER CANNOT BE ADJUDI CATED AT THIS STAGE. THEREFORE, THE CLASSIFICATION OF THE LAND H AS TO BE EXAMINED AFTER REFERRING TO THE ADANGAL OR VILLAGE ACCOUNT N O.2 MAINTAINED BY THE STATE REVENUE DEPARTMENT. IN THE ABSENCE OF CO PIES OF THE EXTRACT OF ADANGAL, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR BETTER APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNA L DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4 I.T.A. NO.370/MDS/16 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 5 TH MAY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 5 TH MAY, 2016. KRI. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. PRINCIPAL CIT-6, CHENNAI 5. 68 ,1 /DR 6. 9' : /GF.