V.Krishnamoorthy, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 556/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4184 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K SANTHANAKRISHNAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.556/MDS/2017 & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI V. KRISHNAMOORTHY, NO.13/6, JAGADAMBAL COLONY, FIRST STREET, ROYAPETTAH, CHENNAI - 600 014. PAN : AAOPK 5310 K V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD - 11(3), CHENNAI - 600 006. ()*/ APPELLANT) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT) )* - . / APPELLANT BY : SHRI K. SANTHANAKRISHNAN, CA +,)* - . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT / - 0' / DATE OF HEARING : 08.06.2017 12' - 0' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.06.2017 / 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)-13, CHENNA I, DATED 29.01.2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. SHRI K. SANTHANAKRISHNAN, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 6,10,890/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. THE A SSESSING 2 I.T.A. NO.556/MDS/17 OFFICER HAS ALSO DISALLOWED THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 11,03,222/- IN TIMBER BUSINESS BESIDES DISALLOWING ` 12,657/- BEING THE MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. THE CIT (APPEALS) SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE IN RES PECT OF HIS CLAIM APART FROM MAKING A CLAIM IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION. T HE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL THE MATERIAL TO SUPPORT THE CLAIM MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER , THEREFORE, AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO THAT THE C ORRECT TAXABLE INCOME CAN BE COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN SATISFACTORILY THE DEPOSIT OF ` 6,10,890/-. MOREOVER, THE LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 11,03,222/- IN TIMBER BUSINESS WAS ALSO NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY PRODUCING NE CESSARY MATERIAL. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPRIETARY BUSINESS OF M/S VENKATESH TRAVELS IS A SEPARATE ENT ITY, THEREFORE, THE LOSS SUFFERED IN TIMBER BUSINESS CANNOT BE SET OFF AGAINST THE PROFIT OF THE TRAVEL BUSINESS. HENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE 3 I.T.A. NO.556/MDS/17 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. IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED BY THE ASSESSEE BY PRODUCING NECESSARY MATERIAL. MOREOVER, THE CLA IM OF LOSS ALSO FOUND TO BE FROM DIFFERENT BUSINESS, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SET OFF. THE FACT REMAINS THAT VENKATESH TRAVELS IS A PROPRI ETARY CONCERN. THE CONSTITUTION OF TIMBER BUSINESS IS NOT KNOWN. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE TIMBE R BUSINESS WAS CLOSED DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON BY TRANSFERRING THE STOCK OF ` 1,34,12,620/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT NECESSARY MATERIAL CAN BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE NECESSARY MATERIAL BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD NOT BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTERESTS OF REVENUE. IT WOULD DEFINITELY PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AR E SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THE 4 I.T.A. NO.556/MDS/17 ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRES H IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND TH EREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A RE ASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 TH JUNE, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 29 TH JUNE, 2017. KRI. - +056 76'0 /COPY TO: 1. )* /APPELLANT 2. +,)* /RESPONDENT 3. / 80 () /CIT(A)-13, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-8, CHENNAI-34 5. 69 +0 /DR 6. :& ; /GF.