S.Manickavasagam, Salem V. ACIT Circle 2, Salem

ITA 933/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6169 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B (S MC) BENCH, CHENNAI, CAMP AT COIMBATORE BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.933/CHNY/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004-05) SHRI S. MANICKAVASAGAM, B-10, FAIRLANDS, SALEM 636 016. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , CIRCLE 2, SALEM PAN: ADRPM 8356K] ( ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 03.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.02.2020 O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM DATED 3 1.01.2019 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2 I.T.A. NO. 933/CHNY/2019 2. SHRI. N. V. BALAJI, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. SINCE THERE IS NO REAS ONABLE CAUSE FOR ADJOURNMENT, THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJ ECTED. 3. I HEARD SHRI. AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND DISPOSE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 4. SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH THA T OF THE CO-OWNER SHRI. V. PALANIAPPAN WERE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. IN THE CASE OF CO-OWNER, THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.1798/MDS/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.05.2017 FOUND THAT ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION RECEIVED WERE REVENUE RECEIPT AND IT HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005. THER EFORE, ACCORDING THE LD. DR, THE PRESENT CASE ALSO HAS TO BE ASSESSED O NLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005. 5. HAVING HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENT ATIVE, I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS THAT COMP ENSATION WAS RECEIVED DURING THE YEAR 2005-06 AND IT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXA TION AFTER CLAIMING 3 I.T.A. NO. 933/CHNY/2019 DEDUCTION U/S.54EC OF THE ACT. THE CLAIM OF COMPEN SATION WAS EXAMINED BY THE DIVISION BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN CO-OWNERS CASE IN ITA NO.1798/MDS/2013 VIDE ORDER DATED 29.05.2017 AND I T WAS SPECIFICALLY FOUND THAT IT WAS REVENUE RECEIPTS AND TO BE ASSE SSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS OF THE DIV ISION BENCH, THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDE RS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, I DISMISS THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.933/CHNY/2019 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-2005 ST ANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 RD FEBRUARY, 2020, AT CAMP AT COIMBATORE. SD/- (... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER COIMBATORE, /DATED, THE 3 RD FEBRUARY 2020. KV / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ! () / CIT(A) 5. $% & / DR 2. ' / RESPONDENT 4. ! / CIT 6. %( )* / GF