ACIT, CHENNAI v. Shri S.M.Segu Mathar Sahib, CHENNAI

ITA 541/CHNY/2010 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 31-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 54121714 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AAQPS8421B
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 541/CHNY/2010
Duration Of Justice 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, CHENNAI
Respondent Shri S.M.Segu Mathar Sahib, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 31-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 31-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 31-01-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 23-04-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: C- BENCH:CHENN AI (BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN JUDICIAL MEM BER) ITA NO. 541/ MDS/10 ASST. YEAR 2006-07 THE ACIT CIR. IX CHENNAI VS. SHRI S.M.SEGU MATHAR SAHIB 46 4 TH NORTH BEACH RD. G.T. CHENNAI 600001 PAN AAQPS8421B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B.SRINIVAS SHRI N.QUADIR HOSAEYN ORDER PER SHRI ABRAHAM P.GEORGE A.M: IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE ITS GRIEVANCE IS T HAT THE CIT(A) DELETED AN ADDITION OF ` 8 00 056/- MADE BY THE AO UNDER SEC. 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 11961 (THE ACT FOR SHORT). 2. ACCORDING TO REVENUE FRESH EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTE D BY THE CIT(A) AND NO OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY CIT(A) TO THE AO FO R HIS COMMENTS ON SUCH FRESH EVIDENCE. ITA NO. 541/MDS /10 2 3. SHORT FACTS APROPOS ARE THE ASSESSEE AN EXPORTE R OF SHARK FINS FISH MAWS AND MARINE PRODUCTS HAD FILED HIS RETURN OF I NCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 6 51 510/-. THE EXPENSES DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT HAD IN IT A SUM OF ` 9 74 891/- SHOWN AS PAID FOR TRANSPORTATION CHARGES TO ONE M/S HAWK LOGISTICS (P) LTD. SINCE NO TDS WAS EFFECTED BY ASSESSEE AS PROVIDED UNDER S EC. 194C OF THE ACT EXPLANATIONS WERE SOUGHT BY THE AO. AS PER ASSESSEE THE SAID SUM INCLUDED ` 1 74 835/- WHICH WAS CUSTOMS DUTY. HOWEVER FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT IT SEEMS ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY REASONA BLE EXPLANATION FORM NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE. AO THEREFORE AFTER EXCLUDING ` 1 74 835/- WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE. HE THEREFORE INV OKED SEC.40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITION OF ` 8 00 056. 4. IN HIS APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SUM OF ` 8 00 056/- COMPRISED OF TWO ITEMS. ` 7 LAKHS WAS PAID TO M/S HAWK LOGISTICS (P) LTD. AND ` 1 00 056/- PAID TO WILDLIFE AUTHORITIES AND FOR CERTAIN OTHER CATEGORIES OF EXPENSES. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEE INSOFAR AS THE SUM PAID TO M/S HAWK LOGISTICS (P) LTD. WAS CON CERNED THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT FOR DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN VIEW OF THE EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DCIT CIR. 50(1) NEW DELHI T O M/S JET AIR AND BASED ON A LETTER ISSUED BY INDIAN AIRLINES TO CARGO AG ENTS. COPIES OF THESE ITA NO. 541/MDS /10 3 LETTERS WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). LD. CIT(A) T AKING COGNIZANCE OF THESE LETTERS AND CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSE E WAS OF THE OPINION THAT NO DEDUCTION WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE FOR TAX A T SOURCE SINCE THE AMOUNTS COMPRISED OF REIMBURSEMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO N CHARGES. HE THEREFORE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE. 5. NOW BEFORE US LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAD ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ACCORDED RELIEF TO THE ASSE SSEE IN GROSS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES 1962. ACCORDI NG TO HIM ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO. 6. LD. AR FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS RELIED ON BY THE CIT(A) WERE NOT BEFORE THE AO AND HE HAD NO OBJECTION IN T HE MATTER BEING REMITTED TO THE AO FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH. 7. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS AND HEARD BOTH THE PA RTIES. IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT THE CIT(A) HAD GIVEN RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BASED ON EXEMPTION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY DCIT CIR.50(1) NE W DELHI TO M/S JET AIR AND LETTER ISSUED BY INDIAN AIRLINES TO ALL CARGO A GENTS AND SUCH LETTERS WERE NEVER PRODUCED BY TLHE ASSESSEE BEFORE A.O BUT ONLY BEFORE THE CIT(A). RULES OF JUSTICE AS WELL AS RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES 1962 REQUIRE THAT AO BE GIVEN A PROPER OPPORTUNITY WHEN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ITA NO. 541/MDS /10 4 ARE ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A). THIS RULE HAS BEEN VIOL ATED HERE. IN SO FAR AS THE SUM STATED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO WILDLIFE AUTHORITY AND FOR OTHER EXPENSES ARE CONCERNED WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE IN THIS R EGARD. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE MATTER REQU IRES A FRESH LOOK BY THE AO. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. AO SHALL GIVE THE ASSES SEE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR FILING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM AND ALSO OT HER EVIDENCE CONSIDERED RELEVANT IN THIS REGARD. AO SHALL PROCEED ACCORDING TO LAW. 8. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31 -01-2011. SD/- SD/- (GEORGE MATHAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI: 31ST JANUARY 2011. NBR CC: ASSESSEE/ ASSESSING OFFICER/ CIT(A)/ CIT/ D .R/ GUARD FILE. ITA NO. 541/MDS /10 5