ACIT, CHENNAI V. B.K.Muralikrishna, CHENNAI

ITA 379/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68693 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Keywords: Revised return
• Section: 143(3); 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR.O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 379/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE XI, KANNAMMAI BUILDING, CHENNAI. VS. SHRI B.K. MURALIKRISHNA, NO. 199/200, KKR GARDEN, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, MADHAVARAM, CHENNAI 60. [PAN : AFAPM2381R] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N. MADHAVAN, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 10.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.09.2013 O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IV, CHENNA I DATED 30.10.2012 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT 2008-09. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT OF HUMAN HAIR AND ITS PRODUCTS U NDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF SHANMUGA INTERNATIONAL. DURING THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INC OME OF ` .17,96,297/-. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.3 33 37 77 79 99 9/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 2 SUBSEQUENTLY, REVISED RETURN WAS FILED BY DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` .16,96,297/-. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND AFTER ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE AC T, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE FOLLOWING PAYMENTS WITHOUT DEDUCT ING THE TDS: SL.NO. NATURE OF EXPENDITURE AMOUNTS ( ` .) 1 FREIGHT CHARGES 16,03,760 2 AUDIT FEE 84,270 3 CONSULTING FEE 1,51,500 4 SECURITY CHARGES 2,37,089 5 INTEREST 9,77,921 TOTAL 30,54,540 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ABOVE PAYMENTS ARE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND HENCE NOT ALLOWABLE AS DEDUCTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISA LLOWED THE ABOVE EXPENSES AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MISTAKENLY ADDED ` .30,45,534/- INSTEAD OF ACTUAL TOTAL OF ` .30,54,540/-. 4. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATI ON BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT BRINGING THE N OTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN PAYMENTS ON WHICH TD S WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.3 33 37 77 79 99 9/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 3 MADE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DAT ED 154 OF THE ACT DATED 12.01.2012 REJECTED ASSESSEES APPLICATION. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AGAINST THE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 154 A S WELL AS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENT IRE FACTS OF THE CASE, CONFIRMED THE DISALLOWANCE OF ` . 19,54,237/- AND GRANTED RELIEF OF ` .11,00,303/- TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR HAS RAISED THE ONLY ISSUE THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT CORRECT IN PASSING COMMON ORDE R UNDER SECTION 154 AS WELL AS SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 9. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR. THE ONLY POINT RAISED BY THE LD. DR FOR OUR CONSIDERATION IS WHETHER THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS CO RRECT IN PASSING THE COMMON ORDER OR NOT. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED TWO APPEALS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) UNDER SECTION 154 DATED 12.01.2012 AND UNDER SECTION 143(3) DATED 30.12.2010. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL S), AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED PARTLY AND THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO. NO. NO. NO.3 33 37 77 79 99 9/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/13 1313 13 4 DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FILED ANY APPEAL AGAINST THE MER ITS OF THE CASE IS CONCERNED. THE ONLY OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LD. DR IS THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE PASSED COMMON ORDER. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. DR WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED CHALLENGING ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 154 A S WELL AS 143(3) OF THE ACT. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE LD . DR. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STAND S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON TUESDAY, THE 10 TH OF SEPTEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE - PRESIDENT (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 10.09.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE/A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.