M.Vadivel, Salem V. ITO, Salem

ITA 965/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8290 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 29-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T S LAKSHMIVENKATARAMAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !'# ! , % !& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.965/MDS/2015 ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI M. VADIVEL, C/O SH. T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN, CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT, NO.55/135, RAJAJI ROAD, SALEM 636 007. PAN : AFAPV 2530 D V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1 (1), SALEM. (+,/ APPELLANT) (-.+,/ RESPONDENT) +, / 0 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN, FC A -.+, / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 11.12.2015 3') / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.01.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM, DA TED 29.01.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WITH REGARD TO AD DITION OF 2 I.T.A. NO.965/MDS/15 ` 1,50,812/- BEING THE BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2008 IN TH E ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH SYNDICATE BANK, SAL EM. 2. SHRI T.S. LAKSHMI VENKATARAMAN, THE LD. REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT AS ON 31.03.2008, THE DEBIT BALANCE IN THE SYNDICATE BANK WAS ` 1,50,812.64. THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE CLARIFIED THAT THE TRANSACTION IN SYNDICATE BANK WA S NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING T O THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE BORROWED OVERDRAFT FAC ILITY AND THE DEBIT BALANCE IN THE BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT HAVE THE CHARACTER OF ANY INCOME, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT TAKE THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE DEB IT BALANCE WAS AS ON 31.03.2008 WHICH FALLS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ASSESSED IN THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2009-10. REFERRING TO THE OBSERVATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . EVEN ASSUMING FOR ARGUMENT SAKE THAT ASSESSEE ACCEPTED T HE ADDITION, IT WILL NOT BIND THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE INCOME DOES NO T PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3 I.T.A. NO.965/MDS/15 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SH. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT ON VERIFICATION OF S YNDICATE BANK ACCOUNT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE WAS DEBIT BALANCE OF ` 1,50,812/-. HOWEVER, THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDING EN TRY IN THE BANK STATEMENT. IN THE SAME ACCOUNT ON 10 TH JANUARY, 2009, A DEBIT ENTRY OF ` 1,51,748/- WAS FOUND. FOR THIS ALSO, THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDING ENTRY. WHEN THIS WAS POINTED OUT TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, HE ACCEPTED THE SAME AND OFFERED TH E ABOVE SAID AMOUNT AS INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION AND HENCE NO INTERFERENCE IS CALL ED FOR. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE TWO ADDITIONS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 3,02,560/- IN RESPECT OF THE DISCREPANCY IN THE BANK STATEMENT. THE FIRST A DDITION IS IN RESPECT OF ` 1,50,812/-, THAT IS THE DEBIT AS ON 31.03.2008, WHI CH WAS CARRIED FORWARD TO 01.04.2008. THE SECOND ADDITION IS ` 1,51,748/-, THE CREDIT ENTRY FOUND ON 10.01.2009 IN THE SYNDICA TE BANK OD ACCOUNT. THE APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS ONLY I N RESPECT OF DEBIT BALANCE OF ` 1,50,812/-. THE ADDITION OF ` 1,51,748/- IS NOT THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL. 4 I.T.A. NO.965/MDS/15 5. NOW COMING TO THE ADDITION OF ` 1,50,812/-, ADMITTEDLY THIS IS THE DEBIT BALANCE IN THE OD ACCOUNT AS ON 31.03.200 8, WHICH WAS CARRIED FORWARD TO 01.04.2008. THEREFORE, THE ADDI TION, IF ANY, HAS TO BE MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 AND NOT ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10. MERELY BECAUSE THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE CONSENTS FOR ADDITION IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON THAT WILL NOT GIVE JURISDICTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSES S THE INCOME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORD INGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDI TION OF ` 1,51,812/- IS DELETED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 1 ST JANUARY, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 1 ST JANUARY, 2016. KRI. 5 I.T.A. NO.965/MDS/15 / -267 87)2 /COPY TO: 1. +, /APPELLANT 2. -.+, /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A), SALEM 4. 1 92 /CIT, SALEM 5. 7: -2 /DR 6. ;( < /GF.