Smt.Ramani.Radhakrishnan, Ernakulam V. DCIT, Ernakulam

ITA 67/COCH/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 64710 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 01-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S BINDHU
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

1 ITA NOS.59 TO 62 & 63 TO 69/COCH/2012 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) AND SHRI B.R. BASKARA N(AM) I.TA NO.59/COCH/2012 - A.Y. 2006-07 I.TA NO.60/COCH/2012 - A.Y. 2007-08 I.TA NO.61/COCH/2012 - A.Y. 2008-09 I.TA NO.62/COCH/2012 - A.Y. 2009-10 SHRI V.N. RADHAKRISHNAN VS DY.CIT, CENT.CIR.2 RAMNEEYAM, VANIYAMKADU ERNAKULAM NEAR VAZHIKULANGARA NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM PAN : ABHPR5814R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.TA NO.63/COCH/2012 - A.Y. 2003-04 I.TA NO.64/COCH/2012 - A.Y. 2004-05 I.TA NO.65/COCH/2012 - A.Y. 2005-06 I.TA NO.66/COCH/2012 - A.Y. 2006-07 I.TA NO.67/COCH/2012 - A.Y. 2007-08 I.TA NO.68/COCH/2012 - A.Y. 2008-09 I.TA NO.69/COCH/2012 - A.Y. 2009-10 SMT. REMANI RADHAKRISHNAN VS DY.CIT, CENT.CIR.2 RAMNEEYAM, VANIYAMKADU ERNAKULAM NEAR VAZHIKULANGARA NORTH PARAVOOR, ERNAKULAM PAN : ABHPR5804P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANTS BY : SHRI MATHEW JOSEPH RESPONDENT BY : MS. A.S. BINDHU 2 ITA NOS.59 TO 62 & 63 TO 69/COCH/2012 DATE OF HEARING : 08-08-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-08-2012 O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN (JM) ALL THE APPEALS OF THE TWO INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES A RE DIRECTED AGAINST TWO COMMON ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX(A)-III, KOCHI DATED 11-01-2012. 2. SHRI MATHEW JOSEPH, THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FOR TH E ASSESSEES SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT S U/S 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES. THE REFORE, THE ASSESSEES COULD NOT PLACE THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPUTING THE CORRECT TAXABLE INCOME. THE LD.REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBM ITTED THAT BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE TRUSTEES OF VARIOUS TRUSTS AND ALL THE AMOUNTS ADDED IN THEIR HANDS ARE ENTRY / ENTRIES FOUND IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE TRUSTS. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY TO GIVE A SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PR ODUCE ALL THE DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE ACCOUNTS OF THE TRUSTS TO ESTABLISH T HAT NO ADDITION IS WARRANTED IN THEIR HANDS. 3. WE HEARD MS. A.S. BINDHU, THE LD.DR ALSO. THE L D.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEES. THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT CO-OPERATED WITH THE ASSESSING OF FICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR, THE ASSESSEES ALSO HAD AN OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(A). 3 ITA NOS.59 TO 62 & 63 TO 69/COCH/2012 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SID E AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSE SSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CLAIMS IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDERS THAT BY LETTER DATED 15-11-2010 THE ASSESSEES WERE REQUESTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BY 22-11-2010. SINCE THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT RESPONDED ANOTHER NOTICE DATED 17-12-2010 WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEES INDICATING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PROPOSED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IT APPE ARS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN ONLY TWO HEARINGS FOR PRODUCING THE DOCUM ENTS. IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNIT Y TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE BANK DEPOSIT. THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THEIR NAMES WERE ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE TRUSTS. THEREFORE, IT IS NECESSARY TO EXAMINE THE ACCOUNTS OF THE TRUSTS ALS O. THE ASSESSEES SHOULD GET SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE ORIGINAL AUTHORIT Y, VIZ. THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IT MAY NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE AS SESSEES HAD A FAIR OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A). IN THESE FACTUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IN OUR OPINION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RECONSIDER TH E ISSUE AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEES TO PRODUCE THE MATERIAL IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE BANK DEPOSIT S. GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE MAY NOT PREJUDICE THE I NTEREST OF THE REVENUE IN ANY WAY. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION TH AT GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEES TO PRODUCE THE MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD DEFINITELY PROMOTE THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. ACCORDING LY THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS R ESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL REC ONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE CALLED FOR AND PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEES AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEES AND IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW. 4 ITA NOS.59 TO 62 & 63 TO 69/COCH/2012 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 10 TH AUGUST, 2012. SD/- SD/- (B.R. BASKARAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN, DT : 10 TH AUGUST, 2012 PK/- COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANTS 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(A) 5. THE DR (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH