Razia Banu, Chidambaram v. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITSSA 4/CHNY/2015 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015

Appeal Details

RSA Number 421716 RSA 2015
Assessee PAN ADFPN7656P
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITSSA 4/CHNY/2015
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Razia Banu, Chidambaram
Respondent DCIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-07-2015
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Bench Allotted A
Date Of Final Hearing 23-07-2015
Next Hearing Date 23-07-2015
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 16-03-2015
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH CHE NNAI . . ! ! ! ! ' ' ' ' # # # # $ $$ $ BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(SS)A. NO. 04/MDS/2015 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD: 1997-98 TO 2002-03 AND PAR T OF 2003-04 MS. RAZIA BANU GNANAGURU CONSULTANCY NO. 121-A EAST CAR STREET CHIDAMBARAM 608 001. [PAN : ADFPN7656P] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II(1) CHENNAI 600 034. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) %& ' ( /APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.D. GOPAL ADVOCATE )*%& ' ( /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN JCIT ' + /DATE OF HEARING : 23.07.2015 - ' + / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.07.2015 . . . . / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 19 CHENNAI A LL DATED 28.11.2014 RELEVANT TO THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 1997-98 TO 2002-03 AND PART OF 2003- 04. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE WAS A SE ARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE CASE OF SHRI N.N.A. AZEEZ ON 11.04.2002. THE ASSESSEE SMT. RAZIA BANU IS THE DAUGHTER OF SRI NN A AZEEZ. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVE D THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI MMA AZEEZ SHARE CERTIFICATES OF M/S. ABU I.T I.TI.T I.T(SS) (SS) (SS) (SS).A. .A..A. .A.NO. NO. NO. NO.0 00 04 44 4/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/15 1515 15 2 ESTATE (P) LTD. BELONGING TO VARIOUS OTHER PERSONS AND BLANK SHARE TRANSFER FORMS WITH SIGNATURES WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN THE SHARES OF ABU ESTATE (P) LTD. D URING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. THEREAFTER A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD O F THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND THE SAME WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 05.06.2003. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT DECLARING NIL INCOME. A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WA S ALSO ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158B D OF THE ACT BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN AS MANY AS OPPORTUNITIES TO THE AS SESSEE ON DIFFERENT DATES HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) OR FILED ANY WRITTEN EXPLANATION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE SUPPO RTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THEREFORE THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED EX-PART E ORDER BY CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN SHARES OF M/S. ABU ESTATE (P) LTD. TO THE TUNE OF .3 78 700/-. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE IDENTITY OF THE SELLER SHRI T.M. ANZARUDDIN FROM WHOM THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED AND HIS WHEREAB OUTS. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FACE VALUE OF THE SHARES AND THE VALUE OF THE SHARES PURCHASED WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY MATERIAL OR DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO SHARES ACQUIRED FROM MS. SARRAMMAL A ND MS. KAIRUNNISSA THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE SHARES WERE GIFTED TO HER BY ANY I.T I.TI.T I.T(SS) (SS) (SS) (SS).A. .A..A. .A.NO. NO. NO. NO.0 00 04 44 4/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/15 1515 15 3 MATERIAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM ON BOTH THE ISSUES THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE BY FILING ALL NECESSARY MATER IAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THA T THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND HE STRONGLY S UPPORTED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S INVESTED IN THE SHARES OF ABU ESTATE (P) LTD. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 000-01. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE IDENTITY OF THE SELLER SHRI T.M. ANZARUDDIN FROM WHOM THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED AND HIS WHEREAB OUTS. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE FACE VALUE OF THE SHARES AND THE VALUE OF THE SHARES PURCHASED WAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED BY MATERIAL OR DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCE BY THE ASSESSEE. WITH REGARD TO SHARES ACQUIRED FROM MS. SARRAMMAL A ND MS. KAIRUNNISSA THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE THAT THE SHARES WERE GIFTED TO HER BY ANY MATERIAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO I.T I.TI.T I.T(SS) (SS) (SS) (SS).A. .A..A. .A.NO. NO. NO. NO.0 00 04 44 4/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/15 1515 15 4 SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM ON BOTH THE ISSUES THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BY STATING THAT FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDE R OF THE TRIBUNAL WITHIN TWO MONTHS THE ASSESSEE WILL APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND READY TO FILE ALL THE DETAILS AND PRAYED THAT ONE MORE OPPOR TUNITY MAY BE GIVEN. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE INTEREST OF J USTICE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUN ITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CASE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE WE SE T ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO RECONSIDER THE ISSUES AFRESH IN THE LI GHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW. THUS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY THE 31 ST OF JULY 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 31.07.2015 VM/- . ' )'+01 21-+ /COPY TO: 1. %& / APPELLANT 2. )*%& / RESPONDENT 3. 3 ( ) /CIT(A) 4. 3 /CIT 5. 14 )'+' /DR & 6. 5! 6 /GF.