ITO, CHENNAI V. Bafna Mahaveer Chand, CHENNAI

ITA 945/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9713 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !' , $ % BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.945/CHNY/2017 ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009-10 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, COMPANY WARD 1(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. SHRI BAFNA MAHAVEER CHAND, NO.299, THAMBUCHETTY STREET, GEORGE TOWN, CHENNAI - 600034. PAN : AACPB 6411 G (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) *+ . / / APPELLANT BY : SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL .CIT ,-*+ . / / RESPONDENT BY : NONE 0 .1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2018 2!( .1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03.12.2018 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -19, CHENN AI, DATED 17.01.2017 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE THROUGH DEPARTMENT. THE LD. D.R. HAS PRODUCED A COPY OF 2 I.T.A. NO.945/CHNY/17 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR HAVING SERVED THE NOTICE ON THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE CHOSE NOT TO APPEAR BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, WE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PROCEED TO DISPOSE THE APPEA L ON MERIT. 3. SHRI R. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMENT AL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE FIRST ISSUE ARIS ES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'T HE ACT'). ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCO UNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN KARNATAKA BANK LTD., MINT STREET CHENNAI, THERE ARE CREDITS BOTH BY CASH DEPOSIT AND CHEQUE DEPOSIT . ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER THAT CASH WITHDRAWALS ARE THE SOURCE FOR CASH DEPOS ITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. AS FAR AS CHEQUE DEPOSITS ARE CONCERNED, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT AMOUNTS WERE RE CEIVED FROM ONE SHRI ABHAY KUMAR JAIN AND SHRI RAMESH KUMAR JAI N. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE NAMES OF SHRI ABHA Y KUMAR JAIN AND SHRI RAMESH KUMAR JAIN DO NOT FIND PLACE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND CONFIRMATION LETTERS WERE ALSO NOT FILED. THER EFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING NOT BEEN SATISFIED WITH 3 I.T.A. NO.945/CHNY/17 THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, MADE ADD ITION. HOWEVER, THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL, DEL ETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE SO-CALLED BANK LEDGER EXTRACTS SAID TO BE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO OCCASION TO EXAMINE THE SAME. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER SAYS THAT THE LO AN OR AMOUNT SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM SHRI ABHAY KUMAR JAIN AND SHRI RAMESH KUMAR JAIN DOES NOT REFLECT IN THE BALANCE SHEET, A CCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE CIT(APPEALS) CLAIMS THAT IT REFLECTS IN THE BANK LEDGER EXTRACTS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., TH ERE WAS A FACTUAL DIFFERENCE WHICH NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED. 4. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., IS ADDITION OF 38.79 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE REVEN UE IS ALSO CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) W ITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF 7.51 LAKHS UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. FOR THESE TWO ADDITIONS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY MATERIAL DURING THE COURSE OF SCR UTINY PROCEEDING. THEREFORE, THE MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E THE 4 I.T.A. NO.945/CHNY/17 CIT(APPEALS) IS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAD NO OCCASION TO VERIFY THE SAME. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE L D. D.R. AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECO RD. THE ASSESSEE APPARENTLY HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL E VIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDING. MANY MATERIALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE C IT(APPEALS). THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT EXAMINING THE CORRECTNESS OF EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO WITHOUT GIVING ANY O PPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DELETED THE ADDITIONS. THEREFOR E, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATERIALS WHICH ARE SAID TO BE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), NEED TO BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE HE IS THE ORIGINAL AUTHORIT Y. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER IN TH E LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THER EAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5 I.T.A. NO.945/CHNY/17 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3 RD DECEMBER, 2018 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 4 /DATED, THE 3 RD DECEMBER, 2018. KRI. . ,156 76(1 /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. 0 81 () /CIT(A)-19, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL-1,CHENNAI 5. 69 ,1 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.