ITO, CHENNAI V. Shri D.Ramraj Naidu, CHENNAI

ITA 873/CHNY/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 87321714 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A C JOSEPH JT

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A NO. 873/MDS/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 ) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER BUSINESS WARD XIV(1) CHENNAI - 34 VS SHRI D.RAMRAJ NAIDU DDC THALLAM GARDEN APARTMENTS FLAT NO.6, II FLOOR NO.121, NEW AVADI ROAD, KILPAUK CHENNAI 600010 [PAN AAJPR7021D ] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.C.JOSEPH, JT. CIT RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 15-11-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-12-2011 O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XII, C HENNAI, DATED 7.2.2011. DESPITE DUE SERVICE OF NOTICE, THE RESP ONDENT REMAINED UNREPRESENTED AND THERE WAS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNM ENT, THEREFORE, THE CASE WAS HEARD EX-PARTE. ITA 873/11 :- 2 -: 2. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TOURIST CAR OPERATOR, HA VING A FLEET OF VEHICLES BUT AT TIMES, HIRED VEHICLES FROM OTHER CA R OPERATORS AS WELL. RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE H AD HIRED VEHICLES FROM OTHER CAR OPERATORS. IT WAS NOTICED FROM THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENTS OF HIRE CHARGES TO THE EXTENT OF ` 34,80,194/- BUT HAD NOT DEDUCTED TAX ON HIRE CHARG ES AMOUNTING TO ` 12,55,446/- PAID TO SMT.D.PADMAPRIYA. ACCORDINGLY , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADDED THIS AMOUNT UNDER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OBJECTED TO HIS PROPOSED ACTION. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THI S ADDITION ON THE PREMISE THAT THE HIRE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN FULLY ADMITTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME AND STATEMENTS ANN EXED TO THE STATEMENT BY THE ASSESSEES WIFE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DECISION OF ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CRESENT HOUSING (P) LTD. VS ITO, 75 TTJ (MAD) 57. NOW THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. 3. AFTER HEARING THE LD.DR, WE FIND IT FOR A FACT FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FAIR SUBMISSION OF ITA 873/11 :- 3 -: THE LD.DR THAT IN THE PAYEES CASE, WHO HAPPENS TO BE WIFE OF THIS ASSESSEE, THE HIRE CHARGES HAVE BEEN SHOWN AND REFL ECTED IN THE STATEMENTS ANNEXED ALONGWITH HER RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, IT SOUNDS LOGICALLY THAT THE PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSES SEE IN RESPECT OF HIRE CHARGES, TO THE EXTENT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HAD ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE RECIPIENT PARTICULARLY WHEN THE PAYEE HAPPENS TO BE ASSESSEES WIFE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS V ERY BENCH AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FOR DEVIATING FROM THE TRIBUNAL ORDER RENDERED BY THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. ACCORDINGLY, BY FOLLOWING T HE TRIBUNALS ORDER (SUPRA), WE SUSTAIN THE IMPUGNED DELETION AND DISMI SS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH DECEMBER, 2011. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15 TH DECEMBER, 2011 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR