ITO (Exemptions), CHENNAI V. St. Alfred Educational Trust, CHENNAI

ITA 588/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7709 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence

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 ] ./ I.T.A.NO.588/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER(EXEMPTIONS) WARD 3 CHENNAI VS. M/S ST. ALFRED EDUCATIONAL TRUST NO.42, SRINIVASA NAGAR KOYAMBEDU CHENNAI 600 017 [PAN AABTS 7317 M ] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.B KOLI, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.BANUSEKAR, CA / DATE OF HEARING : 11 - 02 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 - 03 - 2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-VII, CHENN AI, DATED 8.12.2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. SHRI A.B. KOLI, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-TRUST MADE ADVANCES TO THE EXTEN T OF ` 4,25,53,000/- TO THE INTERESTED PERSONS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THOUGH THE ADVANCE OF ` 3,59,78,000/- WAS MADE EIGHT YEARS AGO, ITA NO.588/15 :- 2 -: NEITHER THE SALE DEED WAS REGISTERED NOR THE AMOUNT WAS RECOVERED. THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED MORE THAN 50% OF THE INC OME IN THE LANDS AND FAILED TO SUBMIT THE ACCUMULATION CHART FOR THE LAST ELEVEN YEARS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 11 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) BY ADMITTIN G ADDITIONAL MATERIAL, ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCO RDING TO THE LD. DR, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL BE FORE THE CIT(A), HE OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER. 3. WE HEARD SHRI T.BANUSEKAR, LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR T HE ASSESSEE ALSO. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE HAS FAIRLY S UBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE C IT(A). THE CIT(A), AFTER EXAMINING THE MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY AT KOYAMBEDU, ALLOWED THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. IF THE REVENUE CONTENDS THAT FOR CONSIDE RING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, AN OPPORTUNITY NEEDS TO BE GIVEN TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER, HE MAY NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO REMIT THE MATTER B ACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-EXAMINATION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 11 OF TH E ACT ON THE GROUND THAT NO MATERIAL WAS FILED BEFORE HIM FOR ACQUISITI ON OF PROPERTY AT KOYAMBEDU. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ITA NO.588/15 :- 3 -: CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, ALL OWED THE CLAIM OF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT REMAINS THAT NO OPPORTUNIT Y WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN THE CIT(A) ADMITTED ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT UNDER RU LE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, AN OPPORTUNITY SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONTROVERT THE CONTENTS OF THE ADDITION AL MATERIAL. SINCE SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN, THE MATER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE CLAIM OF T HE ASSESSEE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRESH IN THE L IGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) A ND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH MARCH, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 18 TH MARCH, 2016 RD ITA NO.588/15 :- 4 -: &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF