ITO, CHENNAI v. S.Vignesh & Others, Legal Heirs of Late Dr.T.K.Shanmugasundaram, CHENNAI

ITA 252/CHNY/2011 | 2004-2005
Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 25221714 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAVPS9986J
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 252/CHNY/2011
Duration Of Justice 5 month(s) 6 day(s)
Appellant ITO, CHENNAI
Respondent S.Vignesh & Others, Legal Heirs of Late Dr.T.K.Shanmugasundaram, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-07-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 22-07-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 11-07-2011
Next Hearing Date 11-07-2011
Assessment Year 2004-2005
Appeal Filed On 15-02-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI AM AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN J.M. .. I.T.A. NO. 252/MDS/2011 [ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05] INCOME-TAX OFFICER BUSINESS WARD XIV(4) CHENNAI 600 034. VS. SHRI S. VIGNESH AND OTHERS LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE DR. T.K. SHANMUGASUNDARAM NO. 147 PERIYAR EVR ROAD KILPAUK CHENNAI 600 010. PAN NO. AAVPS 9986 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D. RAJASEKARAN I.T. PRACTITIONER DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB SR. DR O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI A.M :- THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-XII CHENNAI DATED 30.11.2010. PAGE 2 OF 6 I.T.A. NO. 252/MDS/2011 2. THE SOLE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APP EAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 19 37 709/- BEING ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS BY ADMITT ING FRESH EVIDENCES IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WI THOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIOLATIO N OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER OBSERVED FROM THE BALANCE SHEET FILED ALONG WITH RETURN OF I NCOME BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN RS. 19 37 709 /- AS ASSETS TRANSFERRED FROM LATE SMT. UMA SHANMUGASUNDARAM AND HAS DECLARED TOTAL INVESTMENT AT RS. 31 44 109/- AS AG AINST RS. 17 37 951/- DECLARED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. T HE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INC REASE IN INVESTMENT AMOUNT WAS DUE TO INHERITANCE OF VARIOUS ASSETS DEPOSITS OF HIS WIFE SMT. UMA SHANMUGASUNDARAM ON H ER DEATH AND THAT SHE HAS NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE LAS T SEVERAL YEARS AND SHE HAS NOT EVEN APPLIED FOR PAN. FROM THIS T HE ASSESSING OFFICER INFERRED THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER EXPLANATI ON REGARDING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT NOR SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS TO S HOW THAT THIS PAGE 3 OF 6 I.T.A. NO. 252/MDS/2011 INCOME HAS ACCRUED TO THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. AC CORDINGLY HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 19 37 709/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69B OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT]. 4. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SU BMITTED THAT HIS WIFE SMT. UMA SHANMUGASUNDARAM WAS OWNING ASSET S THAT WERE INHERITED BY HIM FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS WHICH IS EVI DENT FROM THE FACT THAT REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF ASSETS AND ALSO INCOME FROM SUCH ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED BALANCE SHEET DRAWN UP FROM YEAR TO YEAR I NDICATING ASSET POSITION OF THE DECEASED WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE DOCTO R AND ALSO THAT TAXES HAVE BEEN PAID BY HER IN RESPECT OF THE RETUR N FILED TILL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE LD. CIT(A) RELYING O N THESE DOCUMENTS DELETED THE ADDITION OBSERVING THAT THE A SSETS OF MORE THAN RS. 19 37 709/- WERE INHERITED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM HIS WIFE AND THEY STAND EXPLAINED AND THEREFORE NOT ASSESSA BLE TO TAX U/S 69B OF THE ACT. PAGE 4 OF 6 I.T.A. NO. 252/MDS/2011 5. THE LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE YEAR WIS E BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE SMT. UMA SHANMUGASUNDA RAM AND ALSO EVIDENCE OF RETURNS FILED TILL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME. THE SAME WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) RELY ING ON THESE VERY DOCUMENTS HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION WITHOUT CALLIN G FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIOLATING RULE 4 6A OF THE I.T. RULES. THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOU LD BE SET ASIDE AND ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE RESTOR ED. 6. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND ARGUED THAT NO NEW DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THESE DOCUMENTS WERE PART OF THE RECORD OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION RELYING ON THE SAME. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE FIND THAT IN THE INSTANT CAS E THE ADDITION OF RS. 19 37 709/- CAME TO BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FI LE ANY EVIDENCE PAGE 5 OF 6 I.T.A. NO. 252/MDS/2011 TO SHOW THAT THESE ASSETS WERE INHERITED BY HIM FRO M HIS WIFE SMT. UMA SHANMUGASUNDARAM AND THAT SHE WAS AN I.T. ASSES SEE AND HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME TILL ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AND ALSO PAID TAX. ASSESSEE FILED EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF YEAR- WISE BALANCE SHEET OF HIS WIFE SMT. UMA SHANMUGASUNDARAM AS WELL AS EVIDENCES OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY HIS WIFE TILL ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2002- 03 WHICH SHOWED ASSETS AMOUNTING TO RS. 19 37 709/- APPEARING IN THOSE BALANCE SHEETS. SINCE THESE DOCUMENTS WERE N OT FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED T HESE DOCUMENTS AND RELYING ON THEM DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HE HAS VIOLATED RULE 46A OF THE ITAT RULES 1962. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING ALSO CO ULD NOT FILE ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITIONS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. IN THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINIO N IT SHALL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF T HE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSE E IS DIRECTED TO PAGE 6 OF 6 I.T.A. NO. 252/MDS/2011 FILE EVIDENCES WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) ALSO BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS AND WHEN CALLED UPON BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO DO SO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO REA DJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER VERIFYING ALL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STAT ISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 22 ND JULY 2011. SD/- SD/- ((GEORGE MATHAN ) (N.S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 22 ND JULY 2011. VL COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE