N Latha Chennai v. Ito Chennai

ITA 3481/CHNY/2016 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2017 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

Note: Please login to view full details
RSA Number 348121714 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN xxxxxxxxxxx
Bench xxxxxxxxxxx
Appeal Number xxxxxxxxxxx
Duration Of Justice 11 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant xxxxxxxxxxx
Respondent xxxxxxxxxxx
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 05-12-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 05-12-2017
Date Of Final Hearing 26-07-2017
Next Hearing Date 26-07-2017
First Hearing Date 26-07-2017
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 27-12-2016
Judgment Text
B Smc In The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal B Smc Bench Chennai Before Shri Chandra Poojari Accountant Member I T A No 3481 Mds 2016 Assessment Year 2010 11 Smt N Latha 14 6 Venugopal Street Vetri Nagar Pervallur Chennai 82 Vs The Income Tax Officer Non Corporate Ward 17 1 Chennai Pan Aeupl 6568 C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms B Jaisheila C A Respondent By Mr B Sagadevan Jcit D R Date Of Hearing 22 11 2017 Date Of Pronouncement 05 12 2017 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari Accountant Member This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Aggrieved By The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax A 5 Chenna I Dated 08 11 2016 Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010 11 Ita No 3481 Mds 2016 2 2 The Assessee Raised The Following Grounds For C Onsideration 1 For That The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Is Contrary To Law Facts And Circumstances Of The Case To The Extent Prejudicial To The Interest Of The Appellant And At Any Rate Is Oppose D To The Principles Of Equity Natural Justice And Fair Play 2 For That The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Failed To Appreciate That The Order Of The Assessing Officer Is Without Jur Isdiction 3 For That The Reopening Was Bad In Law 4 For The Reopening Was Made On A Mere Change Of Opinion 5 For That The Assessment Was Reopened Without An Y New Tangible Material 6 For That The Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs 36 00 000 As Income From Undisclos Ed Sources 2 1 The Assessee Has Also Raised The Following Addi Tional Grounds For That The Ao Erred In Not Passing The Speaking Order 2 2 The Assessee Filed A Petition For Admission Of Additional Grounds Stating That The Assessee Failed To Raise The Said Ground Due To Inadvertence And Prayed That This Additional Gro Und May Be Admitted 2 3 At The Time Of Hearing The Ld A R Has Not Pr Essed The Ground Nos 1 To 5 Raised In Assessees Appeal According Ly These Grounds Are Dismissed As Not Pressed Ita No 3481 Mds 2016 3 3 The Main Grievance Of The Assessee In Her Appea L Is With Regard To Confirming The Addition Of 36 Lakhs By Ld Cit A As Income From Undisclosed Sources Made By The Ld Assessing Officer 4 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Asess Ee Is Engaged In Chit Business During The Period Relevant To Ay 2010 11 On Going Through The Cash Flow Statement For The Year Ending 31 03 2010 It Is Found That The Assessee Has Admitted To Have Receiv Ed 36 00 000 From Debtors The Transaction Involved Is Dispropor Tionate To The Source Of Income Being Salary And Interest On Bank Deposits As Admitted By Assessee Further In The Statement Of Total Income For The Above Period The Assessee Has Offered Income F Rom Salary And Interest Income Only But Has Not Offered Any Income From Any Other Source It Is Considered Necessary That The Genuine Ness Of Assessees Claim Of Receipt From Debtors Of 36 00 000 Needs To Be Verified In The Light Of Relevant Accounts And Tran Sactions Made Through Bank As Well Holding That There Is Reason To Believe That There Is An Element Of Escapement Of Income Under T His Score Besides Suppression Of Income From Salary And Inter Est Income The Ita No 3481 Mds 2016 4 Assessment Has Been Reopened U S 147 By Issue Of No Tice U S 148 And Was Duly Served On The Assessee On 18 09 2014 In Response The Assessee Has Filed A Return Of Income For Ay 20 10 11 Admitting A Total Income Of 4 16 640 On 17 10 2014 In The Above Return She Has Offered An Additional Income Of 20 000 And 37 672 Under Salary And Interest Income Respectively Thereby Re Conciling The Difference In Income From The Above Two Sources As Admitted In The Return Filed On 25 07 2011 And That As Received As Per Record Except To The Tune Of 1 346 Which Has Been Brought To Tax 4 1 In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings The A Ssssee Has Been Asked To Explain The Source From Which The Adv Ance To Debtors To The Extent Of 36 00 000 Has Been Made And The Source From Which I E Details Of Debtors From Whom The Same H As Been Received Back Along With Necessary Documentary Evidence In R Espect Of Transaction Of Loan Given Above 20 000 In Cash In Violation Of The Provisions Of Section 269 Ss Also Explanation Has Be En Called For From The Assessee Sri P Kamalesan The Authorized R Epresentative Of The Assessee Appeared And The Case Has Been Heard On Various Ita No 3481 Mds 2016 5 Dates Despite Reasonable Opportunities Given The A Ssessee Could Not Offer Explanation Furnish Details Required Of Her In The Situation It Is Presumed That She Has No Explanation To Offer And A Ccordingly 36 00 000 Has Been Treated As Income From Unexpla Ined Sources And Brought To Tax Under Income From Other Sources Regarding Her Income From Chit Business It Is Claimed That The Su Bscription Received From The Members Has Been Deposited In Bank And Int Erest Earned Thereon Has Been Offered As Income For Assessment Accordingly The Assessment Is Completed On The Above Lines And 36 Lakhs Is Added To The Income Of Assessee As Income From Undisclose D Sources Aggrieved By The Order Of Ld Assessing Officer Th E Assessee Carried The Appeal Before The Ld Cit A 4 2 Before The Ld Cit A The Assessee Had Not Fil Ed Any Information Regarding The Source Of That Receipt Of 36 Lakhs Hence The Addition Was Confirmed By The Ld Cit A By Obs Erving As Under 7 1 Before The Ao The Assessee Did Not File Any E Vidence To Explain The Sources For The Receipt From Debtors Of 36 00 000 Ita No 3481 Mds 2016 6 The Assessee Did Not File Any Evidence To Explain The Sources For The Receipt From Debtors Of 36 00 000 Before The Ld Cit A Also Against The Order Of Ld Cit A Now The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us 5 The Main Grievance Of The Assessee Before Me I S That The Order Passed By The Lower Authorities Is Very Crypt Ic And Evidences Not Appreciated Properly By The Lower Authorities A Nd Placed Before Me A Copy Of Confirmation Letters From The Followin G Persons Which Was Filed By The Assessee In The Course Of Penalty Proceedings Initiated By The Ld Assessing Officer U S 271 D Of The Act Sl No Name Amount Letter Dated 1 Mr P Premnath Rs 2 50 000 18 07 2017 2 Mr R Stephen Rs 2 50 000 18 07 2017 3 Mr D Shanmugam Rs 2 50 000 18 07 2017 4 Mr T R Narasiman Rs 5 22 960 18 07 2017 5 Mr K Marriappan Rs 5 45 070 18 07 2017 6 Mr K Kishore Kumar Rs 2 50 000 18 07 2017 7 Mr B Sasi Kumar Rs 2 50 000 18 07 2017 8 Mr B Nagaraj Huf Rs 5 18 000 18 07 2017 9 Mr B Akbhar Rs 2 50 000 18 07 2017 Ita No 3481 Mds 2016 7 The Ld A R Submitted That These Evidences Are Filed Before The Ld Assessing Officer At The Time Of Hearing Of Penalty Proceedings Initiated U S 271 D Of The Act Andprayed That This M Ay Be Remitted To The Ld Assessing Officer For Fresh Consideration 6 On The Other Hand Ld D R Submitted That These Are Additional Evidences Which Should Not Be Admitted And The Ass Essee Was Not Produced In Spite Of Giving Many Opportunities I N Reply To The Above Argument Of The Ld D R The Ld A R Submitted That The Bench On Earlier Occasion On 14 09 2017 Directed The Assess Ee To Produce Cash Flow Statement And Other Related Records Henc E It Was Produced As Per The Direction Of The Bench And It I S To Be Considered 7 I Have Heard Both The Parties And Perused The M Aterial On Record Admittedly The Bench On Earlier Occasion D Ated 14 09 2017 Directed The Assessee To Furnish The Cash Flow Stat Ement And Balance Sheet Concern So As To Verify The Genuineness Of Th E Transaction As Well As The Identity Of The Parties Who Return B Ack The Money To The Assessee Hence The Same Has Been Considered How Ever These Documents Are Not Available To The Ld Assessing Of Ficer At The Time Of Assessment Proceedings Hence It Is Appropriate To Consider The Ita No 3481 Mds 2016 8 Same By The Ld Assessing Officer And Decide The Is Sue Afresh Accordingly The Issue Is Remitted To The File Of L D Assessing Officer To Consider The Above Evidences Filed By The Assessee And Decide The Issue In Accordance With Law 8 In The Result The Appeal Of Assessee Is Partly Allowed For Statistical Purposes Order Pronounced On 05 Th December 2017 Sd Chandra Poojari Accountant Member Chennai Dated The 05 Th December 2017 K S Sundaram Copy To 1 Appellant 3 Cit A 5 0 1 23 Dr 2 Respondent 4 Cit 6 1 45 6 Gf