M.Saravana Kumar, Coimbatore V. ITO, Coimbatore

ITA 626/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64336 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-09-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 25-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: T SURESH JOSEPH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.626/MDS/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) MR. M.SARAVANA KUMAR, OLD NO.17A, NEW NO.16, SRI KRISHNA NAGAR, BRINDA LAYOUT, CHOKKAMPUDUR ROAD, COIMBATORE-641 001. PAN:AVMPS8371H VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-III(3), COIMBATORE. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : MR. T.SURESH JOSEPH, C.A . RESPONDENT BY : MR. S.DASGUPTA, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012 O R D E R PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM: THE APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 25.11.2011 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED WITH THE DELAY OF 50 D AYS. AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED CITING REASONS FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIO D OF LIMITATION. THE DR HAS ALSO NOT OBJECTED THE PETITION FOR COND ONATION OF ITA NO.626/MDS/2012 2 DELAY. THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEA L GIVEN IN THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION SEEMS TO BE BONAFIDE. I N THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, WE DEEM IT APPROPRI ATE TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL TO BE HEARD ON MERITS. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF TELEVISION, REFRIGERATOR ETC. ON COMMISSION BASI S. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME RELEVANT TO THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ON 5.9.2008 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,22,500/- . THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELEC TED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 23.9.2009. DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNIT IES OF HEARING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF HIS REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CONSTRAINED TO P ASS BEST JUDGEMENT ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.12.2010 UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT ASSESSED T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.25,76,370/-. ITA NO.626/MDS/2012 3 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSE SSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) VIDE ORDER DATED 25.11.2011 PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE . HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE TUNE OF ` 21,07,202/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN BONDS/DEBENTURES. THE ASSESS EE HAS COME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IMPUGNING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 5. THE A.R. APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT A DETAILED BANK ACCOUNT S TATEMENT WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO SHOW THAT NO INV ESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY BONDS OR DEBEN TURES. THE TRANSACTION OF RS.21,04,000/- RELATES TO VARIOU S BANK ENTRIES IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSE E MAINTAINED WITH KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK. THE A.R. DURIN G THE COURSE OF ARGUMENTS, PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH A P HOTOCOPY OF ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT A N AMOUNT OF RS.21.00 LAKHS APPROXIMATELY IS THE TOTAL VOLUME OF TRANSACTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN SAVINGS BANK AC COUNT ITA NO.626/MDS/2012 4 OVER THE PERIOD OF ONE YEAR I.E. FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2007 TO 31 ST MARCH, 2008. THE A.R. FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE AS SESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT ANY PROOF OR EVIDENCE AND IS THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI S.DASGUPTA, APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE A UTHORITIES BELOW. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15. 12.2010 SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NEGLIGENT IN PURSU ING HIS CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAD EXTENDED NO ASSISTANCE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT. IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS CONSTRAINED TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECT ION 144 OF THE ACT. AS PER THE CONTENTIONS OF THE A.R., THE DETAILS OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A), BUT , THE SAME WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). WE ARE OF T HE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ISSUE REQUIRES FRESH CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ITA NO.626/MDS/2012 5 MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE EVIDENCE AND THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE I S DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FURNISH ALL THE DETAILS/DOCUMENTS SO THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH RELATING TO ALLEGED INVES TMENT IN BONDS AND DEBENTURES. 8. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TUESDAY, THE 25 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P.GEORGE) (VIK AS AWASTHY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2012. SOMU COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (4) CIT(A) (2) RESPONDENT (5) D.R. (3) CIT (6) G.F.