V.A.Jahafar Sadik, Kumbakonam V. ACIT, Kumbakonam

ITA 743/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6559 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 21-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G NARAYANASWAMY
• Section: 263

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER .. ITA NO. 743/MDS./11 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 V.A.JAHAFAR SADIK, PROP.ASIKA THANGA MALIGAI, 25, NAGESWARAN NORTH, KUMBAKONAM 612 001. VS. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE-I, KUMBAKONAM. PAN ADVPJ 5479 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI G.NARAYANASWAMY DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P JACOB O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DATED 17.03.2011 PASSED U/S. 263 BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ERRED BOTH IN LA W AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT. 2. HE ERRED INSTATING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AD OMITTED TO CONSIDER THE CREDITS TOTALING TO RS.53,3 8,136/- IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT. PAGE OF 4 ITA. 743/MDS/11 2 3. HE OVERLOOKED THAT THESE AMOUNTS REPRESENTED REALIZATION OF SALE PROCEEDS OF HIS FOREIGN BUSINES S AND THAT, PROCEEDS WERE RECEIVED FOR THE EARLIER YEARS HAD BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. HE SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT, HAVING BEEN CONVINCED OF THE FACT OF THE SALE OF FOREIGN BUSINE SS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY WANTED PROOF OF RECEIPTS TOTALING TO RS.68,84,450/- IN THIS YEAR. 5. HE OVERLOOKED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SATISFI ED HIMSELF WITH THE REALIZATION OF SALE PROCEEDS ON TH E BASIS OF THE COPIES OF THE DEMAND DRAFTS AND THAT OF THE BANK STATEMENT. 6. HE OVERLOOKED THAT HE HAD NO JURISDICTION TO RECONSIDER THE JUDICIAL DECISION TAKEN BY ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS BEFORE HIM. 7. IN ANY CASE, HE SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM AND DROPPED THE PROCEEDINGS. 8. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, PRAYS THAT THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) MAY BE SET-ASIDE. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE SHRI G.NARAYANASWAMY SUBMITTED THAT HE WANTS TO WITHDRAW THE APPEAL FILE D. 3. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO WITHDRAWING OF THE APPEAL BY THE L D. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. PAGE OF 4 ITA. 743/MDS/11 3 4. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 5. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMI SSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING IN THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES ON 14 TH JULY, 2011. SD/- SD/- ( GEORGE MATHAN ) ( N.SAINI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 14 TH JULY, 2011. K S SUNDARAM COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE PAGE OF 4 ITA. 743/MDS/11 4 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITY 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO P.S. 6. KEEP FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER