DCIT, CHENNAI V. Shri J.Bhavesh Chandak & Others, L/R of LateJagjeevan Chandak, Ernakulam

ITSSA 33/CHNY/2001

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9178 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 year(s) 2 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2001
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OMKARESHWAR CHIDRA
• Assessee Lawyers: K C AARTHI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Block assessment
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH D CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ..... I.T. (SS) A. NO. 33 / MDS/2001 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 1.4.88 TO 17.9.88 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY CIRCLE III(3), CHENNAI 600 006. (APPELLANT) V. SHRI J. BHAVESH CHANDAK, 60, GODOWN STREET, CHENNAI 600 001. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDRA RESPONDENT BY : MS. K.C. AARTHI O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS ORIGINALLY DISPOSED OF BY THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 19 TH JUNE, 2009 ALONG WITH ITS APPEAL NO. I.T. (SS) A. 145/MDS/2003 AND ASSESSEES APPEAL NO. I.T. (SS) A. 132/MDS/2003. ONE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REV ENUE IN THE APPEAL WAS THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF ` 1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UN DER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT). 2. ACCORDING TO REVENUE, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAD COME TO THIS CONCLUSION BASED ON THE ENTRIES IN THE CASH BOOK IN THE NAME OF JJ IT(SS)A NO.33/MDS/01 2 ACCOUNT AND JJC ACCOUNT WITHOUT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE. FURTHER, REVENUE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DET AILED EXAMINATION. 3. WHILE DISPOSING OF THE ABOVE APPEAL, THIS TRIBUN AL IN RELATION TO GROUND NO.2 OF THE REVENUE COVERING ISSUE NO.1 HAD HELD AS UNDER:- 5. ISSUE NO.1: REGARDING DELETION OF ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNE D DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AS WELL AS THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) DID NOT DELETE THE ADDITION BUT REM ITTED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DUE VERIFICATION OF THE CONTENTS FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL VIDE PARAGRAP H NO.7.3.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER. MOREOVER, THIS ISSUE IS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL I.T. (SS) A. NO. 1 32/MDS/2003 BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS AGAIN MADE THE AD DITION AFTER REDOING THE ASSESSMENT AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, THIS ISSUE IS REJECTED AS NOT ARISEN FRO M THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AS THE SAME IS INVOLVED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN THE SECOND ROUND. 4. LATER, REVENUE FILED A MISCELLANEOUS PETITION PL EADING THAT THE ORIGINAL ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WAS ` 2,50,000/- OUT OF WHICH, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), ON ASSESSEES APPEAL, HAD DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,50,000/- AND REMITTED THE BALANCE ADDITION OF ` 1,00,000/- BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR RE- EXAMINATION. IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED APPEAL WITH REGARD TO THE AM OUNT OF ` IT(SS)A NO.33/MDS/01 3 1,00,000/- REMITTED BACK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREAS, REVENUE HAD PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A PPEALS) DELETING ` 1,50,000/-, OUT OF THE TOTAL CASH CREDIT OF ` 2,50,000/-. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE MISCELLANEOU S PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THERE WAS A MIS TAKE APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN SO FAR AS THE ISS UE OF ` 1,50,000/- WAS NOT RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5. NOW, THE LEARNED D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE WHOLE O F THE ADDITION OF ` 2,50,000/- NEEDS TO BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND NOT THE SUM OF ` 1,00,000/- ALONE AS HELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). 6. PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAD NO OBJECTION IN THE MATTER BEING REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD THE RIVAL C ONTENTIONS. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OUG HT TO HAVE REMITTED THE WHOLE OF THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AND SHOULD NOT HAVE LIMITED THE RE-EXAMINATION TO THE S UM OF ` 1,00,000/- OUT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ` 2,50,000/-. BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE AGREED THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO BE REVISITED BY THE A.O. I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT(SS)A NO.33/MDS/01 4 WE REMIT THIS ISSUE REGARDING ADDITION OF ` 2,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH. OR DERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO THIS EXTENT ARE SET ASIDE. ASSESSEE HAS TO BE GIVEN A NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN I.T. (SS ) A. NO. 33/MDS/2001 SHALL BE TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.07 .2010. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAH AM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 22 ND JULY, 2010. KRI. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT(A)-V, CHENNAI-34 (4) CIT, TAMILNADU-I, CHENNAI (5) D.R. (6) GUARD FILE