T.M.Muthukumar, Coimbatore V. ACIT, Coimbatore

ITA 398/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 51644 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 02-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 01-04-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Revision of order; Source of fund
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A, CHENNAI B E F O R E DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NOS.397 & 398(MDS)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01 & 2001-02 SHRI T.M.MUTHUKUMAR, 107A, SENGUPTHA STREET, RAMNAGAR, COIMBATORE. PIN 641 009. PAN ADWPM2497E. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I, COIMBATORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR, AD VOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI SHAJI P JACOB, SR .DR. O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 2000-01 AND 2001-02. THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE REVISION ORDERS PA SSED BY THE -2- ITA 397 & 398/10 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL III, AT CHENNAI THROUGH HIS COMMON PROCEEDINGS DATED 15-3-2010. 2. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143( 3) CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH CARRIED OUT IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MAIN SOURCES OF INCOME DECLARED BY T HE ASSESSEE ARE BUSINESS AND AGRICULTURE. THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,32,230/- AND AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 19,49,502/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. AS AGAINST THE ABOVE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,13,42,230/- AND AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 2,90,000/-. 3. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE ASSESSEE HA S RETURNED A TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,40,876/- AND AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 45,090/-, AS AGAINST WHICH THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT ` 1,19,63,010/- AND AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ` 1,35,000/-. -3- ITA 397 & 398/10 4. THE ASSESSMENTS WERE TAKEN BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND THEREAFTER BEFORE THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C-BENCH AT CHENN AI. THE TRIBUNAL DISPOSED OF THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE THROUGH THEIR COMMON ORDER DATED 19-3-2010 AFTER ALLOWING T HE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISMISSING THE APPEALS FI LED BY THE REVENUE. 5. MEANWHILE, ON VERIFICATION OF THE RECORDS OF TH E CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX HELD THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE NATURE AND IMPACT OF TWO DEPOSITS REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02. THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME-TAX POINTED OUT THAT A DEPOSIT OF ` 10,90,000/- MADE IN GLOBAL TRUST BANK IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WA S NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. LIKEWISE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THERE WAS A DEPOSIT OF ` 21,50,000/- IN THE SAME GLOBAL TRUST BANK, WHICH WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TOTAL OF THE ABOVE TWO DEPO SITS AMOUNTING -4- ITA 397 & 398/10 TO ` 32,40,600/- WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING AUTH ORITY SO THAT THE NON EXAMINATION OF THESE RELEVANT DEPOSITS HAS MADE THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. 6. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, SHOW CAUSE NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND DETAILED RE PLIES WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFO RE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX THAT THE GLOBAL TRUST BA NK ACCOUNT WAS VERY MUCH WITH THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN THE C OURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IT IS AFTER EXAMINING AL L ACCOUNTS INCLUDING THE BANK ACCOUNTS THAT THE ASSESSING AUTH ORITY HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 153A READ W ITH SECTION 143(3). THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE EXPLAINED T HAT IT IS NOT PROPER TO INDICT THAT THE ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PROPERL Y EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME- TAX. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX REVISED THE AS SESSMENT ORDERS AND REMANDED BACK THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO -5- ITA 397 & 398/10 RE-EXAMINE AND DETERMINE THE EXACT NATURE OF THE DE POSITS TOTALING TO ` 32,40,600/-. 7. IT IS AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COME IN APPEALS BEFORE US. 8. WE HEARD SHRI S.SRIDHAR, THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI SHAJI P JACOB, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVENU E. 9. ON GOING THROUGH THE RECORDS OF THE CASE, WE FI ND THAT ALL THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE OTHER DOCUME NTARY MATERIALS WERE SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE COUR SE OF THE SEARCH. ALL THOSE RELEVANT MATERIALS WERE AVAILABL E AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHILE COMPLETIN G THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS. 10. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE STATED ACCOUNT BOOKS AND MATERIALS, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAS CARRIED OUT DETAILED ENQUIRIES IN THE COURSE OF COMPLETING THE IMPUGNED -6- ITA 397 & 398/10 ASSESSMENTS. A DETAILED EXAMINATION WAS CARRIED OU T BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY WHICH IS MANIFEST FROM THE FACT THAT THE INCOME DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 WAS ` 1,13,42,230/- AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IT WAS ` 1,19,63,010/- AS AGAINST TOTAL INCOME OF ` 1,32,230/- AND ` 1,40,876/- RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE HUGE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSE SSING AUTHORITY ON THE BASIS OF DETAILED DISCUSSIONS AND FINDINGS MADE OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. 11. MORE SPECIFICALLY IT IS NECESSARY TO STATE THA T THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HAD IN FACT EXAMINED THE ACCOUN TS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE GLOBAL TRUST BANK. IT IS THE CAS E OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX THAT THE DEPOSIT OF ` 10,90,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND THE DEPOSIT OF ` 21,50,600/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WERE NOT INVESTIGAT ED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. IT GIVES THE IMPRESSION THAT THE RESPECTIVE AMOUNTS FOR THE IMPUGNED TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE SINGLE DEPOSITS. IT IS NOT SO. THE DEPOSIT OF ` 10,90,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 AND THE DEPOSIT OF ` 21,50,000/- FOR -7- ITA 397 & 398/10 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WERE MADE UP OF DIFFERE NT SMALL DENOMINATIONS. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THO SE SMALL DEPOSITS WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORI TY WHEN IN FACT HE HAD VERIFIED THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE W ITH GLOBAL TRUST BANK. 12. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SAY THAT THE DISPUTED DE POSITS WITH THE GLOBAL TRUST BANK WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ONLY FOR THE REASON THAT CORRESPONDING AD DITIONS WERE NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. THE ASSESSIN G AUTHORITY MIGHT HAVE EXAMINED THOSE DEPOSITS AND CAME A CONCL USION THAT THOSE DEPOSITS WERE EXPLAINED AND ADDITIONS WERE NO T CALLED FOR. THEREFORE, THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY I N THE MATTER OF INVESTIGATING THE RELEVANT BANK DEPOSITS CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS. 13. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT IS OUR CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THERE IS NO GROUND TO HOLD THA T THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN THESE TWO CASES ARE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE RESTS OF THE -8- ITA 397 & 398/10 REVENUE. THEREFORE WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED REVIS ION ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX ARE NOT SU STAINABLE IN LAW. ACCORDINGLY THE REVISION ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02 ARE VACATED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 2 ND DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 2 ND AUGUST, 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.