ITO, Vellore V. Shri C.Krishna, Vellore

ITA 69/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0985 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 14-01-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 69/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-I(6), VELLORE. V. SHRI C. KRISHNA, NO.1/66, BIG STREET, SATHAMPAKKAM, WALAJA TK. (PAN : ALIPK6202F) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB RESPONDENT BY : NONE O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(AP PEALS)-IX, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 140/09-10 DATED 26-10-2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08. AT THE TIME OF HEARING A LETTER OF ADJOURNMENT HAD BEEN FILED S UBMITTING THAT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF STATION. THE ADJOURNMENT LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NO VAKALAT HAS AL SO BEEN FILED BY ANY REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, LEARNED SR. DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER IN M/S. GLOBUS INTERNATIONAL WHICH IS DOING THE BUSINESS OF DYEING JOB WORK AT RANIPET. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILED HIS BALANCE SHEET AS AL SO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT DETAILS I.T.A. NO.69/MDS/2011 2 AS IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH D EPOSIT OF ` 11,19,500/- ON 31.3.2007 IN HDFC BANK. THE DETAILS WERE NOT PRODU CED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HA D PRODUCED A CERTIFICATE FROM HDFC BANK MENTIONING THAT THE ACCOUNT NUMBER MENTIO NED WAS NOT THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IDENTIFIED THE TRANSACTION NUMBER WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCE D A LETTER FROM THE HDFC BANK MENTIONING HIS ACCOUNT NUMBER AND NOTHING IN R ELATION TO THE TRANSACTION WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ON THE B ASIS OF THE LETTER FROM THE HDFC BANK MENTIONING THE ACCOUNT NUMBER THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD BEEN DELETED. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION TH AT THESE DETAILS WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE TRANS ACTION WHICH WAS IDENTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO NOT BEEN ANSWERED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUE WAS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR R E-ADJUDICATION ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT(A). 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD IDENTIFI ED THE REFERENCE NUMBER OF THE TRANSACTION AS 6062010000224. IT IS NOTICED TH AT BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED A CERTIFICATE FROM THE HD FC BANK STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING A SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER 1 2951930000026 AND THAT THE HDFC BANK BRANCH WAS NOT HAVING ANY ACCOUNT WIT H THE NUMBER I.T.A. NO.69/MDS/2011 3 6062010000224. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT THE ACCOUNT NUMBER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED FOR. IT IS A PARTICULAR TRANSACTION MADE AS ON 31.3.2007 WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED INTO QUESTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REFERENCE NUMBER OF THE TRANSACTION HAD ALSO BE EN IDENTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS NOT THE SAVINGS BANK ACCO UNT NUMBER WHICH HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS FALLEN INTO AN ERROR IN NOT VERIFYING THE SAID TRANSACTION NUMB ER AND HAS ONLY ACCEPTED THE CERTIFICATE OF THE HDFC BANK MENTIONING THAT THE SA ID TRANSACTION NUMBER WHICH HAS BEEN MISINTERPRETED BY THE BANK AS AN ACCOUNT N UMBER TO BE NOT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE- ADJUDICATION AND WE DO SO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER S HALL GIVE A COPY OF THE SAID TRANSACTION ALONG WITH THE TRANSACTION NUMBER WHICH HE HAS QUESTIONED TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHALL ALSO GRANT THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE IN REGARD TO THE SAID TRANSACTION. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 23/03/2 011. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 23 RD MARCH, 2011. H. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE