M.G.Ponnuswamy, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 409/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9319 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K N DHANDA
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.409/MDS2016 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI M.G. PONNUSWAMY, 25, OLD NO.13,WEST MANDAPAM RD., ROYAPURAM, CHENNAI 600 013. PAN : AAJPP 0382 P V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE 5, CHENNAI 600 006. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI K.N. DHANDAPANI, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 03.05.2016 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.05.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI , DATED 11.01.2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. SHRI G. BASKAR, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT SAID TO BE RECEIVED 2 I.T.A. NO.409/MDS/16 FROM TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD., THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT A SUM OF ` 14,06,030/- WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIM ED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DEPOSIT WAS MADE IN HUF ACCOUNT AT TAMILNADU MERCANTILE BANK LTD. THE LD.COUNSEL SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE (HUF) WAS MAINTAINING ACCOUNT AND THE ASSE SSEE DOES NOT HAVE ANY INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT WITH TAMILNADU MERC ANTILE BANK LTD. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT WAS NOT TA LLYING WITH THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(APPEALS ) FURTHER FOUND THAT THE HUF DOES NOT MAINTAIN ANY BUSINESS IDENTIT Y, THEREFORE, WHATEVER COMMISSION SAID TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE (INDIVIDUAL) INCLUDING THE COMMISSI ON DIVERTED TO HUF. IN FACT, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE HU F FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE INCOME OF ` 14,06,030/- AND PAID THE TAXES. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(AP PEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI K.N. DHANDAPANI, THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTE DLY DEPOSITED A SUM OF ` 14,06,030/- IN THE ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH TAMILNAD U 3 I.T.A. NO.409/MDS/16 MERCANTILE BANK LTD. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(APPEALS) THAT THESE ARE THE MON EY RECEIVED BY HIM AS BROKER FOR PURCHASE OF LAND FROM VARIOUS PER SONS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH DETAILS BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO HAVE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R THAT WHAT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IS FOR PURCHASE OF THE LAN DS ON BEHALF OF SEVERAL PERSONS, AS BROKER. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TH AT MONEY WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF HUF. A COPY OF TH E BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THI S TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMENT MADE BY TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED IN TH E HUF ACCOUNT AND NOT IN THE INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE HUF HAS ALREADY FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND ADMITTED THE INC OME. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS 4 I.T.A. NO.409/MDS/16 THAT THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY HIM IN HIS CAPACITY AS BROKER FROM PROSPECTIVE PURCHASERS OF THE LAND, THE DETAILS OF PERSONS FROM WHOM THE MONEY RECEIVED NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED. UNFO RTUNATELY, BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE SA ME. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY , THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF T HE DETAILS OF THE PERSONS FROM WHOM ADVANCE MONEY FOR PURCHASING THE LAND IS SAID TO BE RECEIVED AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH MAY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 12 TH MAY, 2016. KRI. 5 I.T.A. NO.409/MDS/16 / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A)-5, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-9, CHENNAI 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.