V.Lalitha, Tiruchengode V. ACIT, Salem

ITA 890/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9876 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.890/MDS/2015 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SMT. V. LALITHA, PROP: M/S V.L. TEXTILES, 15-B, WEAVERS COLONY NO.2, TIRUCHENGODE 637 211. PAN : ABVPL 7873 J V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE II, SALEM. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT 0 . 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 11.06.2015 2!( . 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.06.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM, DA TED 31.03.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2 I.T.A. NO.890/MDS/15 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF THE DIR ECTION OF THE ADDL. CIT UNDER SECTION 144A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'), MADE AN ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 20,97,170/- AND ANOTHER SUM OF ` 1,60,124/- TOWARDS DEFICIT STOCK. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE WAS A SURVEY IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT SHE WOULD OFFER AD DITIONAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF ` 20,97,170/-. BY WAY OF LETTER DATED 14.12.2010, TH E ASSESSEE EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DU RING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION, SHE WAS UNDER MENTAL PRESSURE AND OUT OF NERVOUSNESS SHE SIGNED THE STATEMENTS. THEREFORE, IT COULD NOT BE ACTED UPON. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, AN OPPOR TUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE ADDITION C OULD NOT BE MADE. REFERRING TO SECTION 144A OF THE ACT, THE LD .COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT INCOME CANNOT BE ADDED UNLESS AN OPP ORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER. S INCE NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL , THE CASE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER AFRESH. 3. WE HAVE HEARD SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE LD. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT A SURVEY WAS 3 I.T.A. NO.890/MDS/15 CONDUCTED ON 4.10.2007 AND ON 14.12.2010, THE ASSES SEE RETRACTED THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SURVEY, ALMOST AF TER THREE YEARS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN CLAIMING NO W THAT THE ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT REC ORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE A LSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144A OF THE ACT. PROVISO TO SECTION 144A CLEARLY SAYS THAT NO DIRECTIONS WHICH ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE ISSUED BEFORE AN OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO BE HEARD. THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THA T THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER CANNOT GIVE ANY DIRECTION WITHOUT GIVI NG AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHEN IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TH AT OTHER THAN THE STATEMENT SAID TO BE RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THERE IS NO OTHER MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT K NOWN WHETHER ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A S CONTENDED BY THE LD.COUNSEL. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOW ER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE 4 I.T.A. NO.890/MDS/15 ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL REC ONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRESH AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE MATTER IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 26 TH JUNE, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 26 TH JUNE, 2015. KRI. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A), SALEM 4. 0 81 /CIT, SALEM 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.