M/s. Ranee Enterprises P Ltd., CHENNAI v. DCIT, CHENNAI

CO 87/CHNY/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 12-09-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 8721723 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAACR1738H
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number CO 87/CHNY/2010
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Ranee Enterprises P Ltd., CHENNAI
Respondent DCIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 12-09-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 12-09-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 07-09-2011
Next Hearing Date 07-09-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 26-08-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1270(MDS)/2010 & CO NO.87(MDS)/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE V(3) CHENNAI. VS. M/S. RANEE ENTERPRISES P. LTD. 113-ARMENIAN STREET PARRYS CHENNAI-600 001. PAN AAACR1738H. (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) APPELLANT BY : DR. I.V IJAYAKUMAR IRS CIT-DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.SRID HAR ADVOCATE. DATE OF HEARING : 7 TH SEPTEMBER 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 TH SEPTEMBER 2011 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEAR IS 2007-08. THE APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTIO N ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-V AT CHENNAI DATED 24-5-2010 AN D ARISE - - ITA 1270 OF 2010 & CO 87 OF 2010 2 OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3 ) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE SOLD ITS LAND IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND GA INED A SURPLUS OF ` 21 12 080/-. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE PROPER TY WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THEREFORE IT DOES NOT A MOUNT TO TRANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET/BUSINESS ASSET AND HENCE THE SURPLUS IS NOT EXIGIBLE FOR TAXATION. THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY STATED TO BE FOR WANT OF DETAILS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE AND ADDED THE SURPLUS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. THE ASSESSEE ALSO HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE TOWARDS REPAIRS TO ASSETS AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESS ING AUTHORITY HAD MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF ` 5 36 307/- BEING 25% OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ABOVE STATED ADDITION AS WELL AS THE DISALLOWANCE HAVE BEEN DELETED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AND THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AN D THEREFORE THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DE LETING THE - - ITA 1270 OF 2010 & CO 87 OF 2010 3 ADDITION OF ` 21 12 080/- UNDER INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES BEING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF PROFIT ON SALE OF AGRICULTU RAL LAND UNDER OTHER SOURCES HOLDING THAT THE DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. IT IS THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE DETAILS BEFORE THE ASSES SING AUTHORITY. ON THE OTHER HAND THE DETAILS WERE PLACED BEFORE T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) FOR THE FIRST T IME. IT IS ALSO THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT IN VIEW OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME- TAX RULES THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY A REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. THE SAME SET OF GROUNDS HAS BEEN RAISED IN THE MATTER OF DISALLOWAN CE OF 25% OF THE EXPENSES RELATING TO REPAIRS OF ASSETS. 6. WE HEARD DR.I.VIJAYAKUMAR THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVEN UE AND SHRI S.SRIDHAR THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR T HE ASSESSEE- RESPONDENT. 7. ON GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS REFLECTED IN THE O RDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WE FIND THAT THE EXACT DE TAILS WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT . IT IS ALSO - - ITA 1270 OF 2010 & CO 87 OF 2010 4 TRUE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) H AD NOT ASKED FOR ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING AUTH ORITY SO THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY COULD HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY T O EXAMINE THE PARTICULARS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). IT IS TRUE THAT THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAVE ALL THE POWERS OF THE ASSE SSING AUTHORITY WHILE ENTERTAINING THE FIRST APPEAL WHIC H INCLUDED ALSO THE POWER OF ADMITTING EVIDENCE FOR THE FIRST TIME. BUT RULE 46A PROVIDES THAT WHERE EVIDENCES ARE ACCEPTED FOR THE FIRST TIME A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GIVEN TO THE ASSES SING AUTHORITY. IN THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THE AS SESSING AUTHORITY WAS NOT GIVEN AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). 8. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE FIND THAT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE THIS CASE IS TO BE REMANDED T O THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. WE DO SO. WHILE DOING THE REMAND ASSES SMENT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY SHALL EXAMINE THE EVIDENCES AND IN NO CASE HE SHALL OVER-RULE OR IGNORE ANY OF THE PROPOSITION S LAID DOWN BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). T HE - - ITA 1270 OF 2010 & CO 87 OF 2010 5 ASSESSEE ALSO SHALL BE GIVEN AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD. 9. AS THE MATTER HAS BEEN REMANDED TO THE ASSESSIN G AUTHORITY THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSE E HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 10. IN RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS T REATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND THE CROSS O BJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY THE 12 TH OF SEPTEMBER 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI DATED THE 12 TH SEPTEMBER 2011. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.