ITO, Villupuram V. Shri V. Arumugam, Villupuram

MA 277/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5055 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-10-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVASAN
• Assessee Lawyers: SAROJ KUMAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 276/MDS/2016 [IN I.T.A. NO. 1013/MDS/2015 ] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE, VILLUPURAM. V. SHRI P. KUMAR, NO.242, EAST PONDY ROAD, VILLUPURAM. PAN:AHVPK4326K ( APPLICANT) ( / RESPONDENT) M.A. NO. 277/MDS/2016 [IN I.T.A. NO. 1014/MDS/2015 ] ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VILLUPURAM CIRCLE, VILLUPURAM. V. SHRI V. ARUMUGAM, 7, PAVADAISAMY STREET, VALAVANUR, VILLUPURAM. PAN:AADPA2673E ( APPLICANT) ( / RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : SHRI SHIVA SRINIVASAN, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR, ADVOCATE / 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 FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETIT IONS ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 01.04.2016. 2 M.A. NO. 276/MDS/2016 M.A. NO. 277/MDS/2016 2. SHRI SHIVA SRINIVASAN, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MANUALLY SELEC TED THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEES FOR SCRUTINY IN ORDER TO VER IFY THE PROFIT, SUNDRY CREDITORS AND SUNDRY DEBTORS, SECURED LOSS AND OTHE RS. THIS IS APPARENT ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MORE PARTICULARLY AT PARA 2. WHILE CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE DECLINE IN NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, HE REVISED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SALARY, REPAIR, FREIG HT, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, ETC., AND FOUND THAT THIS NOT A CASE OF N ON-EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R. THE VERY P URPOSE FOR WHICH THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT WAS INITIATED WAS TO VERIFY THE DECLINE IN PROFIT RATIO. THEREFORE THE COMMISSION ER HAS RIGHTLY REVISED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. WE HEARD SHRI SAROJ KUMAR, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEES ALSO. 4. THIS TRIBUNAL AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE REASON FOR REVISION OF THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER AND FOUND THAT WHILE CONSIDERING THE NET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEES, THE AS SESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE WITH REGARD TO SALARY, REPAIR, FR EIGHT, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES ETC., THIS TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO FOUND THAT THE COMMISSIONER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE PROFIT DEC LARED BY THE 3 M.A. NO. 276/MDS/2016 M.A. NO. 277/MDS/2016 ASSESSEES WAS VERY LOW. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FAC TS OF THE CASE, THIS TRIBUNAL SUBSEQUENTLY OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF NON- EXAMINATION OR NON-INVESTIGATION BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THIS TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF T HE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER. THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE C ONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CLAIM OF THE REVENUE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL, THAT DECLINE IN PROFIT WAS NOT TAKEN IN TO CONSIDERATION BY THE TRI BUNAL IS NOT CORRECT. THIS TRIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECL INE IN PROFIT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED THE FACTUAL ASPECT. THEREFORE IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR REVISION BY THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL FIND NO ERRO R MUCH LESS PRIMA FACIE IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREF ORE, THE MISCELLANEOUS PETITIONS FILED BY THE REVENUE HAVE N O 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. 4 M.A. NO. 276/MDS/2016 M.A. NO. 277/MDS/2016 /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( ) /CIT(A) 4. /CIT, 5. ! /DR 6. '#$ /GF.