ACIT, CHENNAI V. Milapchand Dadha & Sons (HUF), CHENNAI

ITA 406/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86242 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND
• Keywords: Block assessment
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI .. , ! , ' #$ BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 406/MDS/2013 ' % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE I, CHENNAI - 600 034. V. M/S MILAPCHAND DADHA & SONS (HUF), NO.12, POES ROAD, 4 TH STREET, CHENNAI - 600 014. PAN : AABHL 0037 P (!(/ APPELLANT) (*+!(/ RESPONDENT) !( , - / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT *+!( , - / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D. ANAND, ADVOCATE . , / / DATE OF HEARING : 20.01.2015 01& , / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.01.2015 / O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 27.11.2012, PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI, CHENNAI AND IT RELATES TO ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2003- 04. 2 I.T.A. NO. 406/MDS/2013 2. WE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD. FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE D ID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME EITHER VOLUNTARILY OR IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY A.O. UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE INCOME-T AX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). THE ASSESSEE ALSO DID NOT COOPER ATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED WITH INDIAN BANK, THE A.O. NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED AMOUNTS TO THE TUNE OF ` 32.97 LAKHS. SINCE NO EXPLANATION WAS FORTHCOMING, THE A.O. ASSESSED THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FURNI SHED CERTAIN DETAILS AND HENCE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE MATERIALS WHICH WE RE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) CONSISTED OF RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ONWARDS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE BLOCK ASSESSME NT ORDERS PASSED IN HIS HANDS. 4. HOWEVER, IN THE REMAND REPORT, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN SE T ASIDE BY THE HON'BLE ITAT TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, THE A.O. POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ALL D ETAILS RELATING TO 3 I.T.A. NO. 406/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. APP EARS TO HAVE STOOD BY THE ADDITION MADE BY HER. 5. THE LD CIT(APPEALS) HOWEVER ACCEPTED THE CONTENT ION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY HIM FOR EARLI ER YEARS AS WELL AS AMOUNT WITHDRAWN FROM BANKS WERE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE IMPUGNED DEPOSIT INTO THE BANK ACCOU NT. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEE N RECEIVING DEPOSITS OF MONEY FROM ITS ASSOCIATE CONCERNS AND I NDIVIDUALS AND LENDING THE SAME TO ITS OWN OTHER ASSOCIATE CONCERN S AND INDIVIDUALS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) TOO K THE VIEW THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT REPRESENTED MON EY LENDING TRANSACTIONS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ES TIMATED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM MONEY LENDING TRANSACTI ONS ` 1,50,000/- NET OF ALL EXPENSES. THE REVENUE IS AGG RIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). 6. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED A COPY OF BANK STATEMENT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WITHDRAWN ANY AMOUNT BY WAY OF CASH AND HENCE, THE LD. CIT(AP PEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE AS SESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS USED THE MONEY WITHDRAWN ON AN EARLIER OCCASION FOR MAKING DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ON A SUBSEQUENT DATE. THE LD. D.R. 4 I.T.A. NO. 406/MDS/2013 ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH AL L DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE COURSE OF REMAND PROCEEDI NGS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. D.R. CONTENDED THAT LD. CIT(AP PEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING THE INCOME OUT OF THE DEPOS ITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURNS OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 00-01 ONWARDS, THOUGH BELATEDLY, AND THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING SUFFI CIENT FUNDS FOR EXPLAINING THE DEPOSITS MADE INTO A BANK. LD. COUN SEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED FUNDS FROM ASSOCIATE CONCERNS AND INDIVIDUALS AND THE ASSESSEE USED THE SAME FOR LENDING MONEY TO OTHER ASSOCIATE CONCERNS AND INDIV IDUALS. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT S HAVE BEEN SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HON'B LE ITAT AND THOSE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS ARE HAVING A BEARING ON THE ADDIT ION MADE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. ACCORDIN GLY, HE PRAYED THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS MADE INTO BANK ACCOUNT. 8. THE LD. D.R. DID NOT OBJECT TO THE PLEA PUT FORT H BY LD. A.R. 5 I.T.A. NO. 406/MDS/2013 9. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH PARTIE S, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED MATTER NEEDS A FRESH VERIFICATION AT THE END OF ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NOW, THE LD. D.R . SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF DEPOSITS MADE INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT. WE HAVE ALREA DY NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS, INSTEAD OF ASCERTAINING T HE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS PROCEEDED TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME WHICH IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER THIS SET OF FACTS, WE AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF LD. COUNSEL THAT THE MATTER RELATING TO DEPOSITS INTO BANK ACCOUNT CAN BE EXAMINED. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE FILE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THEM AFRESH B Y DULY CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION AND INFORMATION THAT MA Y BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TAKE APPROPRIATE DECISION IN AC CORDANCE WITH LAW. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6 I.T.A. NO. 406/MDS/2013 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 20 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ) ( .. ) (VIKAS AWASTHY) (B.R. BASKARAN) ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, A /DATED, THE 20 TH JANUARY, 2015. KRI. B , *'/C D &/ /COPY TO: 1. !( /APPELLANT 2. *+!( /RESPONDENT 3. . E/ () /CIT(A)-VI, CHENNAI 4. . E/ /CIT-IV, CHENNAI 5. FG *'/' /DR 6. GH% I /GF.