B.Jenson Thanaraj, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

MA 90/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3421 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M KARUNAKARAN
• Keywords: Peak credit

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.90/MDS/2015 (IN I.T.A. NO.1232/MDS/2014) ' (' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI B. JENSON THANARAJ, 30, NEW THANDAVARAYA STREET, WASHERMENPET, CHENNAI - 600 021. PAN : AEPPJ 1931 E V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE II(3), [(NOW CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(3)], CHENNAI - 600 034. (*+' /PETITIONER) (*,+-/ RESPONDENT) *+' / 0 /PETITIONER BY : SH. M. KARUNAKARAN, ADVOCATE *,+- / 0 / RESPONDENT BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, JCIT 1 / 2% / DATE OF HEARING : 04.09.2015 3'( / 2% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.09.2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT MISCELLANEOUS PETI TION ON THE GROUND THAT THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE T RIBUNAL DATED 15.05.2015. 2 M.P. NO.90/MDS/15 2. SHRI M. KARUNAKARAN, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE PETI TIONER, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), WHEREIN THE CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO MAKE ADDITION OF PEAK CREDIT. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), MORE PARTICULARLY AT PAGE 5, THE LD.COUNSEL SUBMITT ED THAT WHILE DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WORK OUT THE PEA K OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, HE HIMSELF COMPUTED TH E PEAK CREDIT IN THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER. THE COMPUTATION MADE BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT CORRECT. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, IS THAT THE PEAK DEPO SIT HAS TO BE COMPUTED CORRECTLY. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL CONFIRMED T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER BY WORKING OUT THE PEAK CREDIT WRONGLY, THERE IS AN ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 15.05.2015. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, DR. B. NISCHAL, THE LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT THIS TRIBUNAL, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, FOUND THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE THAT THE MONEY WITHDRAWN FROM TUTICORIN WAS USED TO BE DEPOS ITED IN CHENNAI IN THE VERY SAME S.B. ACCOUNT WAS NOT BELIE VABLE. HOWEVER, THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT SINCE THE CIT(APP EALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAKE ONLY THE PEAK CREDIT, THERE CANNOT BE 3 M.P. NO.90/MDS/15 ANY GRIEVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THIS TRI BUNAL CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). HENCE, THERE IS NO ERROR MUCH LESS PRIMA FACIE ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 15.05.20 15. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITH ER SIDE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. AS RIGHTL Y SUBMITTED BY THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER, THE CIT(APPEALS) ULT IMATELY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO WORK OUT THE PEAK OF THE C ASH CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BY REDUCING THE WITHDRAWALS MADE THROU GH TWO EMPLOYEES, AS THE SOURCE FOR SUBSEQUENT CASH DEPOSI T IN BANK ACCOUNT. THEREAFTER, THE CIT(APPEALS) HIMSELF WORK ED OUT THE PEAK CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 20,27,531/-. THE CIT(APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THIS ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEA LS) WAS CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL BY ORDER DATED 15.05.2015 . THEREFORE, IT IS OBVIOUS THAT BARE READING OF THE CIT(APPEALS)S ORDER SHOWS THAT THE PEAK CREDIT WORKED OUT BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS O NLY ON APPROXIMATE BASIS. AFTER APPROXIMATELY WORKING OUT THE PEAK CREDIT TO THE EXTENT OF ` 20,27,531/-, THE CIT(APPEALS) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE SAME. THEREFORE, T HIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT AS DIRECTED BY THE CIT( APPEALS), THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO WORK OUT THE CORRECT PEAK CREDIT, AFTER 4 M.P. NO.90/MDS/15 GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS CLARI FIED THAT THE WORKING MADE BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS ONLY ON APPROXIMATE BAS IS AS IT IS APPARENT FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). MEREL Y BECAUSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED, IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY MEAN THAT THE PEAK CREDIT APPROXIMATELY COMPUTED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONFIRMED. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS CONFIR MED TO THE EXTENT THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE CIT(APPEALS) TO ADD ONLY THE PEAK OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE C OMPUTATION MADE BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS SUBJECT TO VERIFICATION BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL VERIFY THE PEAK OF THE DEPOSITS AND COMPUTE PEAK OF THE CASH CREDIT CO RRECTLY AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE MISCELLANEOUS PE TITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !'# ! ) ( ... ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. KRI. 5 M.P. NO.90/MDS/15 / *267 87(2 /COPY TO: 1. *+' / PETITIONER 2. *,+- /RESPONDENT 3. 1 92 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 92 /CIT 5. 7: *2 /DR 6. ' ; /GF.