ACIT, Kumbakonam v. Shri N.Muralidharan, Mayiladuthurai

ITSSA 13/CHNY/2011 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 16-11-2011 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 1321716 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAFPM8271Q
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITSSA 13/CHNY/2011
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, Kumbakonam
Respondent Shri N.Muralidharan, Mayiladuthurai
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 16-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 16-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 15-11-2011
Next Hearing Date 15-11-2011
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 05-05-2011
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 I.T(SS)A.NO. 12/MDS/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1-4-1997 TO 23-5-2003) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-I TIRUCHIRAPPALLI. VS. SHRI N. MOHANRAJ 6-C KAVERI NAGAR MAYILADUTHURAI. PAN - AAFPM 8271 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS)A.NO. 13/MDS/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1-4-1997 TO 23-5-2003) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-I KUMBAKONAM. VS. SHRI N. MURALIDHARAN 6-C CAUVERY NAGAR MAYILADUTHURAI-609 001. PAN - AAFPM 8277 J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T(SS)A.NO. 14/MDS/2011 (BLOCK PERIOD : 1-4-1997 TO 23-5-2003) THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-I KUMBAKONAM. VS. SHRI N. RAVICHANDRAN 6-C CAUVERY NAGAR MAYILADUTHURAI- 609 001. PAN - AAEPR 6236 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : DR. I. VIJAYAKUMAR IRS CIT-DR ASSESSEES BY : SHRI PHILIP GEORGE ADVO CATE. DATE OF HEARING : 15 TH NOVEMBER 2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 TH NOVEMBER 2011 IT(SS)A 12 13 & 14/2011 :- 2 -: O R D E R PER DR. O.K. NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT THESE THREE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE. THE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) AT TIRUCHIRAPPALLI DATED 8.1.2008 AND 22.2.2011. THE APPEALS ARISE OUT OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS COMP LETED UNDER SECTION 158BC READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT 1961. 2. THE IMPUGNED BLOCK ASSESSMENTS WERE CONSIDERED B Y THE TRIBUNAL IN FIRST ROUND OF APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEES AND THE DEPARTMENT. THOSE APPEALS WERE DISPOSED OF BY THE TRIBUNAL THROUGH THEIR COMMON ORDER DATED 13.3.2009 PASSED I N IT(SS)A NOS. 45 46 & 47/MDS/2008 AND IT(SS)A NOS.48 56 5 7 & 58/MDS/2008. THE TRIBUNAL SET ASIDE THE ORDERS APP EALED AGAINST WITH A DIRECTION TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) TO ARRIVE AT THE CORRECT AMOUNT TO BE ALLOWED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEES AS TELESCOPING. THE QUESTION OF TELESCOP ING WAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE REASON THAT SHORTAGE OF CASH WAS FOUND IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES WHILE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT WAS IT(SS)A 12 13 & 14/2011 :- 3 -: BROUGHT OUT IN THE PROPERTY. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO DIR ECTED THAT THE CASH FOUND IN THE HANDS OF THE THREE ASSESSEE BROTH ERS ALONE SHOULD BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. IN PURSUANCE O F THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) RE- EXAMINED THE PROCESS OF COMPUTATION AND GRANTED FUR THER RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEES. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED. THEREFOR E THESE APPEALS ARISE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SECOND ROU ND. 3. OBVIOUSLY THE GROUND RAISED IN ALL THESE THREE APPEALS ARE COMMON. THEY ARE TOWARDS THE CONTENTIONS OF THE RE VENUE THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN GIVING THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING TO THE ASSESSEES BY SETTING OFF DEFICIT IN PHYSICAL CASH TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY. THE QUANTUM OF SUCH BENEFITS GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS ` 10 58 573/- IN THE HANDS OF SHRI N. RAVICHANDRAN; AGAIN ` 10 58 573/- IN THE HANDS OF SHRI N. MURALIDHARAN AND ` 13 34 502/- IN THE HANDS OF SHRI N. MOHANRAJ. 4. THESE THREE ASSESSEES ARE CARRYING ON THE BUSINE SS OF JEWELLERY . A SEARCH OPERATION CONDUCTED IN THEIR PREMISES BROUGHT OUT A CASE OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN ACQ UISITION OF PROPERTY AT 109 PATTAMANGALAM STREET MAYILADUTHUR AI. THE IT(SS)A 12 13 & 14/2011 :- 4 -: PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF THESE THREE ASSESSEES WAS ACCOUNTED AT AN APPARENT CONSIDERATION OF ` 14 LAKHS. AS AGAINST THE ABOVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE COST OF TH E PROPERTY AT ` 39 06 597/- ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT ACCOUNTED CASH WA S FOUND SHORT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES AND IT IS IN THE LIGH T OF DEFICIENCY OF PHYSICAL CASH AND UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN PROPERT IES THAT THE QUESTION OF TELESCOPING OF DEFICIENCY AND SURPLUS H AD ARISEN. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE ASPECTS OF THE CASE W E FIND THAT THERE IS NO HARD CASE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT SHORTAGE OF PHYSICAL CASH HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED IN T HE HANDS OF THESE THREE ASSESSEES. THE ONLY OUTFLOW OF UNACCOU NTED EXPENDITURE WAS ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY. THERE IS NO CASE OF ACQUISITION OF ANY OTHER PROPERTY OR OUTFLOW OF CAS H. THEREFORE THE NORMAL PRESUMPTION IS THAT THE MONIES AVAILABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES HAVE TO BE APPROPRIATED TOWARDS AC QUISITION OF THE PROPERTY. WHEN THIS IS THE POSITION DEFICIT C ASH TOWARDS ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY IS ONLY A NATURAL CONSEQUEN CE. ATLEAST THAT VIEW IS EMINENTLY POSSIBLE. IT(SS)A 12 13 & 14/2011 :- 5 -: 6. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WE F IND THAT THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ARE SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVEN UE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ORDERS PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY THE 16 TH OF NOVEMBER 2011 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (DR.O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI DATED THE 16 TH NOVEMBER 2011 MPO* COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR