Benjamin Marcus, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 98/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7858 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAHADEVAN JCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: T N SEETHARAMAN
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , .. ' #$, & '( BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.98/MDS/2016 * +* / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI BENJAMIN MARCUS, SHRI T.N. SEETHARAMAN, ADVOCATE, #384 (OLD NO.196), LLOYDS ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 086. PAN : AAFPM 6883 L V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE XI (NOW ACIT, NCC-5), CHENNAI. (-./ APPELLANT) (/0-./ RESPONDENT) -. 1 2 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T.N. SEETHARAMAN, ADVOCATE /0-. 1 2 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. SAHADEVAN, JCIT ' 1 3& / DATE OF HEARING : 04.01.2017 45+ 1 3& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.01.2017 / 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) 5, CHENN AI, DATED 29.12.2015 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2 I.T.A. NO.98/MDS/16 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADDIT ION OF ` 22,25,550/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). 3. SHRI T.N. SEETHARAMAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SMALL TIME TRADER AND HE DEPOSITED SALE PROCEEDS IN M/S KOTAK MAHENDRA BANK LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ON THE BASIS OF THE SO-CALLED ANNUAL INFOR MATION REPORT SAID TO BE FILED BY M/S KOTAK MAHENDRA BANK LTD., MADE A N ADDITION OF ` 20,72,500/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITI ON ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE STATEMENT IN THE BANK PASSBOOK DOES NOT TALLY WITH ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT RECEIVED BY HIM. ACCORDI NG TO THE LD. COUNSEL, A COPY OF THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT WA S NOT FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT AB LE TO EXPLAIN HOW THE SAME DOES NOT TALLY WITH BANK STATEMENT. T HEREFORE, THE LD.COUNSEL PRAYED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE BANK DEPOSIT BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI B. SAHADEVAN, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOUND THAT THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT OF ` 20,72,500/- IN M/S KOTAK MAHENDRA BANK LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RETURNED AN INCOME OF 3 I.T.A. NO.98/MDS/16 ` 1,53,050/-. AFTER ADDITION OF ` 20,72,500/-, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPUTED AT ` 22,25,550/-. SINCE THE CIT(APPEALS) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE IDENT ITY OF THE CREDITOR, CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR TO ADVANCE THE MONEY AND G ENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPO RT SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM M/S KOTAK MAHENDRA BANK LTD., MADE AN ADDITION OF ` 20,72,500/- UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSES SING OFFICER OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE BANK STAT EMENT DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT. THEREFOR E, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT AN OPPORTUNITY SHOUL D BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE, IF ANY, AFTER F URNISHING A COPY OF THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER FROM M/S KOTAK MAHENDRA BANK LTD. SINCE ADMITTEDLY A COPY OF THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT WAS NOT FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATT ER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE 4 I.T.A. NO.98/MDS/16 SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE- EXAMINE THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER FURNISHING A COPY OF THE ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT SAID TO BE RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESS EE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE SAME, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVI NG A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . ' #$ ) ( . . . ) (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.R.S. GANESAN) & / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 31 ST JANUARY, 2017. KRI. 1 /3#8 98+3 /COPY TO: 1. -. /APPELLANT 2. /0-. /RESPONDENT 3. ' :3 () /CIT(A)-5, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT-9, CHENNAI 5. 8; /3 /DR 6. * < /GF.