M/s. Prime Urban Development India Ltd., Tiruppur v. ITO, Tiruppur

ITA 1883/CHNY/2012 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 188321714 RSA 2012
Assessee PAN AABCP9571D
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 1883/CHNY/2012
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Prime Urban Development India Ltd., Tiruppur
Respondent ITO, Tiruppur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Date Of Final Hearing 19-11-2014
Next Hearing Date 19-11-2014
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 25-10-2012
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C B ENCH CHENNAI . ! # $ % & BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO. 1883/MDS/2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) M/S. PRIME URBAN DEVELOPMENT INDIA LTD. 110 AVINASHI ROAD GANDHI NAGAR POST TIRUPUR-641 603. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-I(4) TIRUPUR. PAN: AABCP9571D ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. K.RAVI ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. A.V.SREEKANTH JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 19 TH NOVEMBER 2014 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 TH NOVEMBER 2014 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II COIMBATORE DATED 27.09.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2009- 10 ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDE R SECTION154 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS COMPLETED ON 30.12.2011 DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 39 39 93 543/-. WHILE COMPLETING THE 2 ITA NO.1883/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 2 11 43 929/- AS INCOME FROM BUSINESS ON THE GROUN D THAT 14% OF THE SHARE IN CAR PARKING AMOUNT IS NOT ADM ITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITI ON UNDER SECTION 154 STATING THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF ` 2 11 43 929/- HAS BEEN OFFERED AS INCOME DURING THE FINANCIAL YEA RS 2006- 07 TO 2009-10 IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER:- S.NO. FINANCIAL YEAR AMT. ` 1. 2006-07 ` 50 33 945 2. 2007-08 ` 41 89 920 3. 2008-09 ` 1 02 68 748 4. 2009-10 ` 25 65 913 TOTAL ` 2 20 58 526 THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT SINCE THE ABOVE AMOUNT WAS ALREADY OFFERED AS INCOME IN THOSE RESPECTIVE YEARS THE ADDITION MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 BR INGING TO TAX THE SAID AMOUNT IS NOTHING BUT DOUBLE ADDITI ON. THEREFORE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT IS A MISTAKE APPARENT ON RECORD IN ASSESSING THE AMOUNTS TWICE AND SOUGHT FOR RECTIFICATION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE P ETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE AP PARENT ON RECORD BECAUSE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED A BREAK-UP OF THE LAND M ONEY 3 ITA NO.1883/MDS/2012 RECEIVED BY IT AND SINCE THIS AMOUNT IS NOT TALLYIN G WITH THE 14% SHARE INCOME FROM CAR PARKING THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT O N RECORD IN ASSESSING THE AMOUNT OF ` 2 11 43 929/-. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS) AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY REPRODUC ING THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM IN THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E ACT AND DELETING ADDITION OF ` 2 11 43 929/- EXCEPT ` 8 92 500/- ARISING FROM 14% SHARE IN CAR PARKING AMOUNT COLLEC TED FROM TENANTS. 3. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT LOOKED INTO THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY OFFERED EVEN ` 8 92 500/- AND WITHOUT GOING INTO AS TO WHETHER ` 8 92 500/- HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED OR NOT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SIMPLY REFERRING TO THE ORDER PASSED IN THE APPEAL PROCEED INGS AGAINST THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL STATING THAT APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWE D. COUNSEL 4 ITA NO.1883/MDS/2012 SUBMITS THAT THERE IS NO FINDING BY THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS TO WHETHER THE SAID AMOUNT IS A DOUBLE ADDITION OR NOT AS THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT THIS AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSE E. 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITS THAT IT WAS THE FINDI NG OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THAT THIS AMOU NT HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND SOME FORCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FINDING AS TO WHETH ER THERE IS A DOUBLE ADDITION OF ` 8 92 500/- SINCE THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT AMOUNT OF ` 2 11 43 929/- WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS. THIS ASPECT HAS NOT BEEN GONE INTO BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS). IN OUR VIEW SINCE THERE IS NO FINDING GIVEN BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AS TO WHETHER ` 8 92 500/- WAS ALREADY TAXED OR NOT AND SINCE NO C ONCLUSION 5 ITA NO.1883/MDS/2012 WAS ARRIVED AT BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) WHILE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT O F OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON FRIDAY THE 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ( *+ ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGEND RA PRASAD ) - / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * - / JUDICIAL MEMBER * /CHENNAI / /DATED 28 TH NOVEMBER 2014 SOMU 12 32 /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 4 () /CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2 7 /DR 6. /GF .