K.V.Jayaraman, CHENNAI V. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 520/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1840 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 02-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS D ROHINI
• Assessee Lawyers: B SIVARAMAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: CHENNAI , . , & BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.520/CHNY/2017 /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SHRI K.V.JAYARAMAN, NO.17, SUNDARAM LAYOUT, RAMANATHAPURAM, COIMBATORE-641 045. [PAN: ADJPV 7536 L] VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER- OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-II, COIMBATORE. ( ( /APPELLANT) ( )*( /RESPONDENT) ( + / APPELLANT BY : MR.B.SIVARAMAN, ADV. )*( + /RESPONDENT BY : MRS.D.ROHINI, JCIT + /DATE OF HEARING : 17.06.2019 + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.06.2019 / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, COIMBATORE, IN ITA NO.39/14- 15 DATED 30.11.2016 FOR THE AY 2011-12. 2. MRS. D.ROHINI, JCIT, REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF TH E REVENUE AND MR. B.SIVARAMAN, ADV., REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE. ITA NO.520/CHNY/2017 :- 2 -: 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.AR THAT THE AO HAD MA DE AN ADDITION OF RS.2,97,50,000/- OUT OF RS.10,98,26,450/- CLAIMED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE SHEET AS LAND ADVANCE RECEIVED. IT WAS A S UBMISSION THAT ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAD GRANTED SUBSTANTIAL RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF 12 OUT OF 21 PERSONS, ADDITI ON TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,02,93,550/-, THE LD.CIT(A) HAD CONFIRMED THE A DDITION. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT REMAND REPORT HAD BEEN CALLED FOR F ROM THE AO AND THE AO HAD NOT ISSUED THE SUMMONS TO SOME OF THE CREDIT ORS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ISSUES MAY BE RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF THE AO FOR RE- ADJUDICATION. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF THE AO AND THE LD.CIT(A). IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF THE CREDI TORS. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE CREDITORS WHICH HAVE BEEN CLAIM ED WERE PERSONS OF LOW MEANS AND THE CREDITWORTHY ITSELF IS DOUBTFUL. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 6. ONE OF THE ALLEGATIONS MADE BY THE AO ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AO IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT ISSUED SU MMONS TO SOME OF THE CREDITORS. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE REMAND RE PORT SHOWS THAT THE SUMMONS HAD BEEN ISSUED TO 10 PERSONS RANDOMLY FOR CROSS-VERIFICATION AND THE STATEMENTS WERE ALSO RECORDED. THOSE PERSO NS ON WHICH THE ITA NO.520/CHNY/2017 :- 3 -: SUMMONS WERE ISSUED AND CALLED FOR CROSS-EXAMINATIO N SHOWS THAT SOME OF THEM FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOMES ADMITTING THE BARE MINIMUM INCOME, THE INCOMES GENERATED BY THEM IS NOMINAL, THEY ARE PERSONS HAVING SMALL MEANS LIKE TAILORS, COMMISSION AGENTS, MILK VENDORS , ETC. THOSE WHO HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE GIVEN MONEY ARE ALSO NOT ABLE TO SU BSTANTIATE WHERE THEY WERE HOLDING THE MONEY AND ALL THE PAYMENTS ARE ALL EGED TO HAVE BEEN MADE IN CASH. THOUGH, IT WOULD HAVE BEEN VERY MUCH AVAILABLE TO THE AO TO INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.269SS IN RESPECT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS BY ACCEPTING THE CREDITORS, THE AO HAS TAKEN THE ALTER NATE STAND TO EXAMINE THE CREDITORS AND DISBELIEVE THEM AND RIGHTLY SO. THE ASSESSEE IS UNABLE TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM O F THE CREDITORS. IN FACT, IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CREDITO RS WERE UNWILLING TO APPEAR AND THAT THE SUMMONS SHOULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE AO FOR EXAMINING THE CREDITORS. THE FACT REMAINS, THE ASSE SSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE THE CREDITORS TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CLAIM OF THE ADVANCE. THIS BEING SO, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND THE SAME STANDS UPHELD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 17 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2019, IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( S. JAYARAMAN ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.520/CHNY/2017 :- 4 -: /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED: 17 TH JUNE, 2019. TLN + )34 54 /COPY TO: 1. ( /APPELLANT 4. 6 /CIT 2. )*( /RESPONDENT 5. 4 ) /DR 3. 6 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF