Sudhakar Natarajan, Chennai V. DCIT, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai

MA 151/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6671 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-06-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI ... , . !', $ '% BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER && / M.P. NO.151/CHNY/2019 (IN I.T.A. NO.2205/CHNY/2017) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SHRI SUDHAKAR NATARAJAN, NO.67, NATARAJAN APARTMENT, 1 ST MAIN ROAD, SASTRI NAGAR, ADYAR, CHENNAI - 600 020. PAN : AAIPS 7784 H V. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (*+' /PETITIONER) (*,+-/ RESPONDENT) *+' / 0 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE *,+- / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT 1 / 2$ / DATE OF HEARING : 11.10.2019 34( / 2$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.10.2019 / 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 24.05.2019. 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER AT PAGE 2, LINE 8 FROM THE TOP. 2 M .P. NO.151/CHNY/19 ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE INVESTMENT WAS MA DE ON 03.04.2014 AND NOT ON 08.04.2014. THEREFORE, ACCOR DING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRI BUNAL. REFERRING TO PAGE 3 OF THE ORDER, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AT LINE 8 FROM TOP, THIS TRIBUNAL REFERRED AS IF THE DATE OF TRANSFER O F SHARES IS 18.10.2013. IT SHOULD BE 08.10.2013. THEREFORE, T HIS NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. SIMILARLY, AT PAGE 4, LINE 3 FROM TOP, IT WAS REFERRED AS IF THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE ON 08.04.2014. HOWEVER, IT WAS MADE ONLY ON 03.04.2014. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD . COUNSEL, THIS NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. REFERRING TO PAGE 5 OF THE ORDER, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT AT PARA 7, LINE 10 FROM T OP, THE CBDT FOUND THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE GOVERN MENT OF INDIA AND NOT THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDING OF THE CBDT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO KNOW THAT THE T RUST WAS NOT APPROVED. THEREFORE, IT NEEDS TO BE REFERRED AS C BDT INSTEAD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERRING TO PAGE 6, PARA 7, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS RECORDED THAT ACCORDING TO TH E LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IT SHOULD BE RIGHTLY ALLOWED UNDER SECTION 35 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'T HE ACT'). THEREFORE, UNDER SECTION 35 HAS TO BE INCORPORATE D. 3 M .P. NO.151/CHNY/19 3. REFERRING TO PARAS 11 AND 12 OF THE ORDER OF THI S TRIBUNAL DATED 24.05.2019, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THI S TRIBUNAL OBSERVED AS IF WHEN THE TRUST WAS NOT RENEWED BEYON D 31.03.2006, IT IS NOT KNOWN WHAT MADE THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE DONA TION. THE FACT OF NON-RENEWAL OF RECOGNITION UNDER SECTION 35(1)(I I) OF THE ACT FOR THE RESEARCH INSTITUTION WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE ASSES SEE AS WELL AS TO THE REVENUE. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, ONLY IN DECEMBER, 2018, THE FRAUD COMMITTED BY THE RESEARCH INSTITUTI ON CAME TO LIGHT BY VIRTUE OF FIELD OFFICERS RAISING QUERIES AND ASK ING FOR CONFIRMATION FROM CBDT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSES SEE HIMSELF WAS DUPED BY THE FORGED DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE TRUST. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE OBSERV ATION OF THIS TRIBUNAL THAT THE CLAIM WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF FO RGED AND FALSE DOCUMENTS WAS NOT CORRECT, THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE DELETED. 4. WE HEARD SHRI AR.V. SREENIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., AS FAR AS THE DATES AT PAGES 2,3 AND 4 ARE CONCERNED, THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER. THEREFORE, THE DATE HAS TO BE CORRECTLY INCORPORATE D AS SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY AT PAGE 5, PARA 7, THE CBDT HAS FOUND THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT APPROVED BY T HE GOVERNMENT AND NOT THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, INSTEAD OF THE WORD 4 M .P. NO.151/CHNY/19 ASSESSING OFFICER, CBDT HAS TO BE SUBSTITUTED. R EFERRING TO THE OBSERVATIONS AT PARAS 11 AND 12 OF THE ORDER, THE L D. D.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AS SESSING OFFICER. THE DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND TO BE FALSE IN THE LATER S TAGE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT ESCAPE FROM THE CLUTCHES OF LAW . HENCE, THE RECOGNITION WAS GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMEN T WHICH WAS NOT IN EXISTENCE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THE AS SESSEE BEING A BENEFICIARY CANNOT SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NO CON NECTION WITH THE FORGED DOCUMENTS. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THIS TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE OBSERVATION. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT PAGE 2, LINE 8 FROM TOP, ADMITTEDLY, THE INVESTMENT WAS SAID TO BE MADE ON 03.04.2014 AND NOT ON 08.04.2014. THEREFORE, IT SH OULD BE READ AS 03.04.2014 INSTEAD OF 08.04.2014. THE ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL DATED 24.05.2019 IS RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 6. NOW COMING TO PAGE 3, LINE 8 FROM TOP, HERE ALSO APPARENTLY THERE IS A MISTAKE THAT ACTUAL DATE OF TRANSFER IS 08.10.2013 AND NOT 18.10.2013. THEREFORE, 18.10.2013 SHOULD BE READ A S 08.10.2013. THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IS RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY . 5 M .P. NO.151/CHNY/19 7. NOW COMING TO PAGE 4, THIRD LINE FROM TOP, APPAR ENTLY THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE DATE. IT SHOULD BE 03.04.2014 AN D NOT 08.04.2014. THEREFORE, IT HAS TO BE READ AS 03.04.2014 INSTEA D OF 08.04.2014. THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IS RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY . 8. COMING TO PARA 7 ON PAGE 5 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER , WHILE RECORDING THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL RECORDED AS IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBSE QUENTLY FOUND THAT THE TRUST WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT. HOWEVER, IT SHOULD BE THE CBDT SUBSEQUENTLY FOUND THAT THE TRU ST WAS NOT APPROVED BY THE GOVERNMENT. THEREFORE, THE WORD A SSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BE SUBSTITUTED BY THE WORD CBDT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO SO. IT SHOULD BE READ AS CBDT INSTEAD OF ASSE SSING OFFICER. IT IS RECTIFIED ACCORDINGLY. 9. NOW COMING TO THE OBSERVATION MADE AT PARAS 11 A ND 12, THE DOCUMENTS FOR RECOGNITION INCLUDING THE GAZETTE ONE , ARE NOT IN EXISTENCE. THEREFORE, APPARENTLY IT IS A FORGED DO CUMENT WHETHER IT IS WITHIN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE OR NOT MAY NOT BE RELEVANT FOR ASSESSMENT. THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO FORGED AND NON-EXISTENCE OF DOCUMENT MAY BE RELEVAN T FACTOR AT THE TIME OF PROSECUTION. SUFFICE TO SAY, FOR THE PURPO SE OF ASSESSMENT, THE NON-EXISTING DOCUMENT WHETHER WITHIN THE KNOWLE DGE OF THE 6 M .P. NO.151/CHNY/19 ASSESSEE OR NOT IS IMMATERIAL. THE KNOWLEDGE OF TH E ASSESSEE CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS RIGHTLY OBSERVED AT PARAS 11 AND 12. HENCE, THERE IS NO ERROR AT PARAS 11 AND 12 OF THE ORDER. 10. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 25 TH OCTOBER, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !' ) ( ... ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANE SAN) $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 6 /DATED, THE 25 TH OCTOBER, 2019. KRI. / *27& 8&(2 /COPY TO: 1. *+' / PETITIONER 2. *,+- /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 92 /CIT 5. &: *2 /DR 6. ;' < /GF.