ITO (I/C), Pudukkottai V. Jayalakshmi Ammal & Others, Pudukkottai

MA 17/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5052 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 23-12-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SHREEKANTH
• Keywords: Block assessment
• Section: 131; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 17/MDS/2016 [IN I.T.(SS)A. NOS. 146/MDS/2002 & 154/MDS/2002 ] BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1990-91 TO 2000-01 INCOME TAX OFFICER (I/C), WARD-1, PUDUKKOTTAI. V. SMT. JAYALAKSHMI AMMAL & OTHERS, REP SHRI NATARAJAN, L/H OF N. SOMADSUNDARAM, PUDUKKOTTAI PAN: 3003-S ( APPLICANT) ( / RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI A.V. SHREEKANTH, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : NONE / DATE OF HEARING : 23.12.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.12.2016 / // / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE HAS BEEN AN ERROR IN THE ORDE R OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 30.06.2015. 2. NO ONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF ISSU E OF NOTICE. THEREFORE WE HEARD SHRI A.V. SHREEKANTH, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND DISPOSED OFF THE MISCELLANEOUS P ETITION ON MERIT. 2 M.A. NO. 17/MDS/2016 3. SHRI A.V. SHREEKANTH, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY TO THE EXTENT OF 31,00,000/-, IMPROVEMENT OF PROPERTY AT PUDUKKOTTAI TO THE EXTENT OF 83,700/- AND EXCESS STOCK TO THE EXTENT OF 215 GRA MS OF GOLD JEWELLERY HOLDING THAT THERE WAS NO STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THER E WAS A STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 132(4), TH EREFORE IT MAY NOT BE CORRECT TO SAY THAT THERE WAS NO STATEMENT. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. D .R. AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN FACT , THE STATEMENT WAS SAID TO BE RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE UNDER SEC TION 132 (4). REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT SAID TO BE RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THERE WAS A DOUBT WHETHER THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OR SECTION 131 OF THE ACT. THIS TRIBUNAL ALSO FOUND THAT, THE PANCHNAMA WAS ALSO NO T PRODUCED BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL BY EITHER PARTY. REFERRING T O ANNEXURE 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THIS TRIBUNAL HAS RECORDED THAT, OTHER THAN SEIZED MATERIAL OF 1102.468 GRAMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND 39 KG OF 3 M.A. NO. 17/MDS/2016 SILVER, NO OTHER MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE O F SEARCH OPERATION. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL DID NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER DATED 30.06.2015. T HEREFORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITION FILED BY THE REVENUE HAS NO MERIT. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD DECEMBER, 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 23 RD DECEMBER, 2016. JR. /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( ) /CIT(A) 4. /CIT, 5. ! /DR 6. '#$ /GF.