Jyoti L Vyas, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 389/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8650 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MURUGABOOPATHY
• Assessee Lawyers: R VENKATESH
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, / , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B SMC BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER !./ ITA NO.389/MDS/2016 # $%# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SHRI JYOTI L. VYAS, NO.304, AKASH GANGA APARTMENT, 19, FLOWERS ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI - 600 010. PAN : AERPJ 0881 M V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD XIII(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. ('(/ APPELLANT) ()*'(/ RESPONDENT) '( + , / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. VENKATESH, CA )*'( + , / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M. MURUGABOOPATHY, ADDL. CI T - $ + ./ / DATE OF HEARING : 16.06.2016 01% + ./ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.08.2016 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 12, CHENNAI, DATED 22.12.2015, AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 . 2. SHRI R. VENKATESH, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IS WITH REGARD TO 2 I.T.A.NO.389/MDS/16 ADDITION OF ` 10,00,000/- BEING THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCO UNT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDER EX PARTE UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, T HE ASSESSEES MOTHER SOLD HER SILVER HOUSEHOLD ARTICLES AND PERSONAL EFF ECTS AND THE SAME WAS USED FOR DEPOSIT IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT . THE ASSESSEE WAS INITIALLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN GLASS BOTTLES IN THE NAME OF VINAYAKA GLASS WORKS. THE ASSESSEE CLOSED HIS BUSINESS IN THE YEAR 2002 AND ENGAGED IN PART TIME COMMISSION B USINESS DURING ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 AND 2010-11. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE WAS STATIONED IN BANGA LORE AND VISITING CHENNAI OCCASIONALLY. DUE TO FAMILY DISPUTE, THE A SSESSEE COULD NOT VISIT CHENNAI. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT R EPRESENT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND PRESENT ALL MATERIAL EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSIT. LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE NECESSARY MATERIAL BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI M. MURUGABOOPATHY, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY. HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT AVAILED 3 I.T.A.NO.389/MDS/16 BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS C ONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHE R SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 10,00,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SO URCE FOR MAKING THE DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT DUE TO SOME FAM ILY DISPUTE, HE WAS STATIONED IN BANGALORE AND HE COULD NOT VISIT C HENNAI. THEREFORE, HE COULD NOT REPRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITH NECESSARY MATERIAL. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO EX PLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. GIVING ONE MORE OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT PREJUDICE THE REVENUE IN ANY WAY . THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT GIVING ONE MORE O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. 5. UNDER THE SCHEME OF INCOME-TAX ACT, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO COMPUTE THE TAXABLE INCOME AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF LAW. THEREFORE, GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY WOULD ENABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE CORRECT TAXABLE INCOME AS PE R THE SCHEME OF 4 I.T.A.NO.389/MDS/16 THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE TH E ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND THEREAFTER, DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18 TH AUGUST, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3! /DATED, THE 18 TH AUGUST, 2016. KRI. + ).45 65%. /COPY TO: 1. '( /APPELLANT 2. )*'( /RESPONDENT 3. - 7. () /CIT(A)-12, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-3, CHENNAI 5. 5$8 ). /DR 6. 9# : /GF.