K.Subramaniam, Tiruchengode V. DCIT, Coimbatore

ITA 931/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86297 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 02-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' $ % , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A.NOS. 927 TO 929 & 931/MDS/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2000-01, 2002-03, 2002-03 & 2000- 01) MR. K.SUBRAMANIAM, 168/5-B,KOZHIKKAINATHAM ROAD, TIRUCHENGODE-637 211. VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-III. COIMBATORE. PAN: ARPPS4578R ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. G.BASKAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. S. DAS GUPTA, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 2 ND FEBRUARY, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 / O R D E R PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- II, COIMBATORE, DATED 25.03.2013 FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 & 2002-03 IN RESPECT OF Q UANTUM ADDITIONS AND PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. THE QUANTUM APPEALS ARE IN ITA NOS.927 & 929/MDS/2013 AND PENALTY APPEALS ARE ITA NOS.931 & 928/MDS/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2002- 03 RESPECTIVELY. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE IN QUANTUM APPE ALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFI ED IN 2 ITA NOS.927 TO 929 & 931/MDS/2013 HOLDING THAT FIXED DEPOSITS OF ` 5,50,046/- AND ` 52,00,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2002-03 MADE WITH M/S. TAMILNAD MERCANTILE BANK LTD. TIRUCHENGODE IN THE NAMES OF S.MADHU AND S.MOHAN CONSTITUTED ASSESSEES TAXABLE INCOME WITHOUT DISCHARGING THE ONUS THAT LA Y UPON THE DEPARTMENT TO PROVE THAT SUCH PERSONS ARE BENAM I OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BASED ON THE STA TEMENT RECORDED FROM THE BANK MANAGER AND THERE IS NO MAT ERIAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE DEPARTMENTS CLAIM THAT THESE DEPOSITS HELD IN CERTAIN NAMES WERE ACTUALLY MADE B Y THE ASSESSEE. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT REVENUE AT NO POINT OF TIME HAS GIVEN COPIES OF SUCH STATEMENTS RECORDED OR LET TERS ISSUED BY THE BANK MANAGER TO THE DEPARTMENT AND BA SED ON SUCH STATEMENTS WHICH WERE NOT PUT FORTH TO THE ASS ESSEE, THE ADDITION MADE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMI TS THAT IN SPITE OF SEVERAL REQUESTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE STATEMENTS AND LETTERS GIVEN BY THE BANK MANAGER, B ASED ON WHICH ADDITIONS WERE MADE, WERE NEVER SUPPLIED TO T HE 3 ITA NOS.927 TO 929 & 931/MDS/2013 ASSESSEE. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT COPIES OF THOSE STA TEMENTS WERE ONLY GIVEN WHEN THE MATTER CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THA T COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALSO RELYING O N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND STATEMENT OF THE BANK MANAGER SUSTAINED THE ADDITION AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT SINCE THESE LETTERS AND STATEMENTS WERE NEVER PUT FORTH TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEY WERE GIVEN ONLY AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, HE PLEADS FOR SETTING ASIDE THE MATTERS TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE ESPECIALLY IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL EVI DENCE TO SUPPORT THAT THESE DEPOSITS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE EXCEPT THE STATEMENTS OF BANK MANAGER. 3. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IN TREATING THE FIXED DEPOSITS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE A DDITIONS WERE BASED ON THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM BANK MAN AGER AND THE REVENUE IS NOT DISPUTING THAT THESE STATEME NTS WERE NEVER PUT FORTH TO THE ASSESSEE EITHER IN THE COURS E OF 4 ITA NOS.927 TO 929 & 931/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT APPEARS THAT THESE STATEMENTS WERE GIVEN ONLY AT THE TIME O F THE MATTER CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. TA KING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS MATTER HAS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER GIVI NG ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL SUPPLY STATEMENTS AND LETTERS WHICH WERE OBTAINED F ROM THE BANK MANAGER, BASED ON WHICH THE ADDITIONS WERE MAD E AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. SINCE QUANTUM APPEALS ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE ARE SETTING ASIDE THE PENALTY APPEALS ALSO TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THESE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ( *+ ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) - / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * - / JUDICIAL MEMBER * /CHENNAI, / /DATED 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 SOMU 5 ITA NOS.927 TO 929 & 931/MDS/2013 12 32 / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 4 () /CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2 7 /DR 6. /GF .