Computer Age Management Services Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 127/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5696 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 27-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S NATARAJA

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI ... , !' , # $% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER && / M.P. NO.127/MDS/2017 (IN I.T.A. NO.2250/MDS/2016) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 M/S COMPUTER AGE MANAGEMENT SERVICES PVT. LTD., NEW NO.10 (OLD NO.178) MGR SALAI, NUNGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 034. PAN : AAACC 3035 G V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, LTU (APPEALS) -1, CHENNAI - 600 101. (*+' /PETITIONER) (*,+-/ RESPONDENT) *+' / 0 /PETITIONER BY : SH. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVO CATE *,+- / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SH. S. NATARAJA, JCIT 1 / 2# / DATE OF HEARING : 07.07.2017 3!( / 2# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.07.2017 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER O F THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 27.12.2016. 2. SH. SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL REFERRED TO ITS EARLIE R ORDER IN THE 2 M.P. NO.127/MDS/17 ASSESSEE'S OWN CASE AT PARA 3 AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO DISALLOW ONLY 0.5% OF AVERA GE VALUE OF INVESTMENT WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. EVEN AFTER REFERRING TO THIS ORDER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THIS TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). THE LD.COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T THE DISALLOWANCE, AT THE BEST, CAN BE RESTRICTED TO 0.5 % OF INVESTMENT WHICH YIELDED EXEMPTED INCOME. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHETHER THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT WHICH YIELDED THE EXEMPTED INCOME ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD? THE LD.COUNSEL SUB MITTED THAT IT IS NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD.COUNSEL ALSO COULD NOT FURNISH THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. NATARAJA, THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT WHICH YIELDED EXEMPTED INCOME WERE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECOR D, THE CIT(APPEALS) PRESUMED THAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT HA S YIELDED INCOME WHICH WAS EXEMPTED FROM TAXATION, THEREFORE, THE ORDER WAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED BY THIS TRIBUNAL. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. NO DOUBT, THIS TRIBUNAL REFERRED AT PARA 3 OF ITS ORDER, THE EARLI ER ORDER WHEREIN THE 3 M.P. NO.127/MDS/17 ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO DISALLOW 0.5% OF AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO THE INCOME WHICH DOES NOT FORM PART OF TOTAL INCOME. IN THIS CASE, THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT WHICH YIELDED EXEMPTED INCOME ARE NOT AVAILABLE ON RECORD . THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF INVE STMENT WHICH YIELDED EXEMPTED INCOME. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), HENCE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS DEVOID OF MERIT. ORDER PRONOUNCED COURT ON 27 TH JULY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( !' ) ( ... ) (SANJAY ARORA) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 27 TH JULY, 2017. KRI. / *26& 7&(2 /COPY TO: 1. *+' / PETITIONER 2. *,+- /RESPONDENT 3. 1 82 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 82 /CIT 5. &9 *2 /DR 6. :' ; /GF.