S.Soundararajan, Vellore V. The Addl. CIT, Madurai

MA 334/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5406 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B NAVEEN KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A. NO. 336/MDS/2016 [ IN I.T.A. NO. 316 /MDS/2015] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SMT. M. NANDHINI, 98/1, CHITTOOR HIGH ROAD, KATPADI, VELLORE 7. PAN : AACPN5238P V. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI. (APPLICANT ) ( /RESPONDENT) & M.A. NO. 335/MDS/2016 [ IN I.T.A. NO. 315 /MDS/2015] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI S. SOUNDARARAJAN (HUF), 98/1, CHITTOOR HIGH ROAD, KATPADI, VELLORE 7. PAN : AAOHS3557E V. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI. (APPLICANT ) ( /RESPONDENT) & M.A. NO. 334/MDS/2016 [ IN I.T.A. NO. 314 /MDS/2015] ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI S. SOUNDARARAJAN, 98/1, CHITTOOR HIGH ROAD, KATPADI, VELLORE 7. PAN : AARPS2411E V. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, MADURAI. (APPLICANT ) ( /RESPONDENT) APPLICANTS BY : SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. NAVEEN KUMAR, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 10.02.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.02.2017 2 MP NOS. 334, 335 & 336/MDS/2016 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE ASSESSEES FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PET ITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR WHICH IS APPARENT IN THE FACE OF THE RECORD, IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 17.06.2 016. 2. SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL BY A COMMON ORDER DATE D 17.06.2016 ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES. AT PARA NO. 11 OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ADDITI ON WAS MADE IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD AND SILVE R. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED GROUNDS IN GROUND NO.2 & 3 BEFO RE THIS TRIBUNAL WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD AND SILVE R. HOWEVER, AT PARA NO.13, THIS TRIBUNAL DISCUSSED ONLY ABOUT INVE STMENT IN GOLD JEWELRY AND THERE WAS NO REFERENCE ABOUT SILVER ART ICLES. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF OTHER PARAGRAPHS THE DISCUSSION IS ON LY IN RESPECT OF GOLD JEWELRY AND NOT SILVER ARTICLES. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL, MORE PARTICULARLY AT PARA NO.15 WHICH REL ATES TO THE APPEAL FILED BY SMT. CHANDRALEKHA, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITT ED THAT THIS 3 MP NOS. 334, 335 & 336/MDS/2016 TRIBUNAL AFTER EXAMINING THE ENTIRE FACTS FOUND THA T THERE WAS NO REASON TO MAKE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E IN RESPECT OF 800 GMS OF GOLD JEWELRY AND 9 KGS OF SILVER ARTICLE S. ACCORDINGLY, THE ENTIRE ADDITION WAS DELETED. IN FACT, THE APPE AL OF THE THREE ASSESSEES IN RESPECT OF GOLD JEWELRY AND SILVER ART ICLES ARE ALLOWED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED. HOWEVER, THERE WAS AN OMISSION WITH REGARD TO SILVE R ARTICLES IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING O FFICER FINDS IT DIFFICULT TO GIVE EFFECT TO THIS ORDER OF THIS TRIB UNAL. 3. WE HEARD SHRI B. NAVEEN KUMAR, THE LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO. THE LD. D.R. VERY FAIRLY SUBM ITTED THAT A HARMONIOUS READING OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DA TED 17.06.2016, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOL D THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITY AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF GOLD JEWELRY AND SILVER ARTIC LES IN ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES CASES. HOWEVER, THERE WAS APPARENT OMISS ION WITH REGARD TO SILVER ARTICLE IN THE ORDER. THEREFORE T HIS NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 4 MP NOS. 334, 335 & 336/MDS/2016 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTED LY, THIS TRIBUNAL DISPOSED OFF THE APPEALS OF FOUR ASSESSEES BY A COM MON ORDER DATED 17.06.2016. IN RESPECT OF SMT. CHANDRALEKHA, THIS TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE O N SILVER ARTICLES. IN RESPECT OF OTHER THREE ASSESSEES, SHRI S. SOUNDA RARAJAN, SHRI S. SOUNDARARAJAN (HUF) & SMT. M. NANDHINI, THI S TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED, ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. HOWEVER, THERE W AS OMISSION TO REFER THE SILVER ARTICLE EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS A SP ECIFIC REFERENCE ABOUT THE GOLD JEWELRY. THIS REALLY CREATED CONFUS ION IN THE MINDS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS TRIBUNAL IS INTENDED T O DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT O F THE SO CALLED INVESTMENT IN GOLD JEWELRY AND SILVER ARTICLES. T HEREFORE, THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL TO THE EXTEN T OF OMISSION TO REFER THE SILVER ARTICLES. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS NECE SSARY TO RECTIFY THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF T HIS TRIBUNAL DATED 17.06.2016 NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED. 5 MP NOS. 334, 335 & 336/MDS/2016 5. AT PARA NO.6, PAGE NO.7 THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE I NSERTED AT THE END AFTER THE WORD AUTHORITIES BELOW IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE TOWARDS GOLD JEWELRY AND SILVER ARTICLES. NOW THE LAST LINE OF PARA NO.6 SHALL BE READ AS FOLLOWS: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO U PHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN RESPECT OF ADDIT ION MADE TOWARDS GOLD JEWELRY AND SILVER ARTICLES AND THE SAME ARE S ET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TOWAR DS GOLD JEWELRY AND SILVER ARTICLES ARE DELETED. B. SIMILARLY AT PARA NO.10, PAGE NO.11, THE LAST LI NE NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED BY INSERTING THE WORD IN RESPECT OF GOLD JEWELRY AND SILVER ARTICLES AFTER THE WORD ADDITION. NOW THE LAST LINE OF PAR A NO.10, PAGE NO.11 SHALL BE READ AS FOLLOWS: ACCORDINGLY THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF GOLD JEWELRY AND SILVER ARTI CLES ARE DELETED. C. NOW COMING TO PARA NO.14, PAGE NO.14, THE ORDER SHALL BE RECTIFIED BY INSERTING THE FOLLOWING, AFTER THE WOR D ADDITION IN RESPECT OF GOLD JEWELRY AND SILVER ARTICLES. AFTER THE RECTIFICATION PARA NO.14 SHALL BE READ AS 6 MP NOS. 334, 335 & 336/MDS/2016 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THIS TRIBUNAL WAS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HENCE THE SAME ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF GOLD JEWELRY AND SI LVER ARTICLES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE DELETED 6. THE OTHER PARAS OF THE ORDER SHALL REMAIN AS SU CH. 7. IN THE RESULT AL THE THREE MISCELLANEOUS PETITI ONS STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . . . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, /DATED, THE 14 TH FEBRUARY, 2017. JR. /COPY TO: 1. APPLICANTS 2. /RESPONDENT 3. ( )/CIT(A)-1, MADURAI 4. /CIT, 5. ! /DR 6. '#$ /GF.