M. Krishnakumar, Trichy V. ACIT, Salem

MA 215/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4914 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR

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.P. NO.215/MDS/2016 (IN I.T.A. NO.941/MDS/2015) ( )( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 SHRI M. KRISHNAKUMAR (HUF), 21-B, AMBIKA GARDENS, GANAPATHY NAGAR EXTENSION, MAMBALASALAI, TRICHY-5. PAN : AAEHK 2337 N V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM. (+,( /PETITIONER) (+-,./ RESPONDENT) +,( 0 1 /PETITIONER BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE +-,. 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 11.11.2016 4') 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.11.2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETITION ON THE GROUND THAT GROUND NOS.5,6 & 7 WERE NOT ADJU DICATED BY THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 04.03.2016. 2. SHRI S. SRIDHAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUND NOS.5,6,&7 WITH REGARD TO 2 M.P. NO.215/MDS/16 OPENING BALANCE, HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT DISPOSE OF WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, THE LD. DE PARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL EXAMIN ED THE ISSUE OF OPENING BALANCE AND UPHELD THE ADDITION OF ` 7,92,686/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. AFTER EXAMINING THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCUMULATED INCOME. AFTER CONSIDERING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURC E OF OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 7,92,686/-, ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME WAS CONFIRMED. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R ., IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THIS TRIBUNAL HAS NOT CONSIDERE D THE GROUND RELATING TO OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE. HENCE, ACCORD ING TO THE LD. D.R., THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBU NAL DATED 04.03.2016. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. D.R., THE CLAIM OF OPENING CAP ITAL BALANCE WAS EXAMINED BY THIS TRIBUNAL AND AFTER REFERRING TO TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF ` 55,000/- PER YEAR, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND 3 M.P. NO.215/MDS/16 THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF O PENING CAPITAL BALANCE TO THE EXTENT OF `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