C.S.Pandian, Coimbatore V. ITO, Coimbatore

ITA 96/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2127 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CLEMENT RAMESH KUMARADDL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , C BENCH, CHENNAI . , , BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.96/CHNY/2017 [ [ /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 SHRI C.S. PANDIAN, 1, M.K.S. NAGAR, DEVANAND ILLAM, VADAVALLI, COIMBATORE 641 041. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 4(2), COIMBATORE. PAN: AQHPP2573N ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR,ADDL.CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 19.08.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.11.2019 / O R D E R PER SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, COIMBATORE IN IT APPEAL NO.78/15-16 DATED 29.06.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. SHRI C.S. PANDIAN, THE ASSESSEE, IS A BUILDING CONTRACTOR. WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, INTER-ALIA, TREATED RS.29,64,450/-, THE DIFFERENCE ITA NO.96/CHNY/2017 :- 2 -: BETWEEN THE GROSS RECEIPTS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE GROSS RECEIPTS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND RS.45,00,000/- UNSECURED LOAN U/S.68 AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES REPLY, ETC., ALLOWED PARTIAL RELIEF. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL. 3. THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THE GROSS RECEIPTS IN HIS RETURN AT RS.35,25,000/- ONLY. LATER ON, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A BANK DEPOSITS OF RS.68,92,200/-, BOTH IN THE ASSESSEE NAME AS WELL AS IN HIS WIFES NAME, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ITS ACTUAL GROSS RECEIPTS WAS RS.56,04,050/- AND HENCE PLEADED TO ASSESS HIS INCOME ON THE DIFFERENTIAL GROSS RECEIPTS U/S.44AB @ 8%. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS IN CONNECTION WITH HIS CONTRACT BUSINESS AND PRODUCE CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED LETTERS RANDOMLY TO THE PARTIES BASED ON THE INFORMATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE RETURNED AS INSUFFICIENT ADDRESS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS ASSESSEES ITA NO.96/CHNY/2017 :- 3 -: UNACCOUNTED MONEY DEPOSITED INTO HIS BANK ACCOUNT. LATER ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECTIFIED THIS ADDITION AT RS.20,79,050/-. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED DETAILS OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS AND THE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) THAT THE DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNTS DID NOT REPRESENT UNACCOUNTED MONEY AS ALLEGED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE SUCH MATERIAL BUT CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.45,00,000/-, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A DETAILED EXPLANATION BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND WITH REGARD TO RECEIPT OF RS.4,00,000/- FROM JAYASHREE.M IN MARCH 2012, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THIS SUM IS REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF SB ACCOUNT BY A CREDIT ENTRY DATED 29.03.2012 AND IT REPRESENTS INCOME EARNED IN THE COURSE OF CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS AND INCLUDED IN THE GROSS RECEIPTS ADMITTED IN THE RETURN. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT EXAMINING THE MATERIAL DECIDED THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS BASED ON THE MATERIAL EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND HENCE HIS DECISION IS WRONG, ERRONEOUS, UNJUSTIFIED AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND HENCE PLEADED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL.PER CONTRA, THE LD.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO.96/CHNY/2017 :- 4 -: 4. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AND FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE IMPUGNED MATERIAL IN ARRIVING HIS DECISION. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE RESTORE THESE MATTERS TO THE LD.CIT(A) FOR DUE CONSIDERATION AND PROPER DECISION. THE LD.CIT(A) WOULD AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WOULD DISPOSE THE ISSUES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- /CHENNAI, /DATED 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2019 RSR /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. [ /GF ( ) (DUVVURU R.L REDDY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (S. JAYARAMAN) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER