Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आयकर अपील सं./ Year: 2012-13 Shri C.S. Pandian, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 1, M.K.S. Nagar, Non Corporate Ward 4(2), Devanand Illam, Vadavalli, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 041. PAN: AQHPP2573N (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से /Respondent by : Shri Clement Ramesh Kumar,Addl.CIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 19.08.2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 13.11.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The Assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Coimbatore in IT Appeal No.78/15-16 dated 29.06.2016 for the assessment year 2012-13.
Shri C.S. Pandian, the assessee, is a building contractor. While making the assessment for the assessment year 2012-13, the Assessing Officer, inter-alia, treated Rs.29,64,450/-, the difference
2 -: between the gross receipts admitted by the assessee and the gross receipts found by the Assessing Officer from the bank statements of the assessee and Rs.45,00,000/- unsecured loan U/s.68 and completed the assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) after considering the assessee’s reply, etc., allowed partial relief. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.
The ld.AR submitted that the assessee admitted the gross receipts in his return at Rs.35,25,000/- only. Later on, when the Assessing Officer pointed out that the assessee has made a bank deposits of Rs.68,92,200/-, both in the assessee name as well as in his wife’s name, the assessee submitted that its actual gross receipts was Rs.56,04,050/- and hence pleaded to assess his income on the differential gross receipts U/s.44AB @ 8%. The Assessing Officer required the assessee to furnish the bills and vouchers in connection with his contract business and produce confirmation from the parties. The Assessing Officer also issued letters randomly to the parties based on the information furnished by the assessee which were returned as “insufficient address”. Therefore, the Assessing Officer added the difference between the gross receipts as assessee’s
3 -: unaccounted money deposited into his bank account. Later on the Assessing Officer rectified this addition at Rs.20,79,050/-. On appeal, the assessee submitted details of the cash withdrawals and the submitted before the ld.CIT(A) that the deposits into the bank accounts did not represent unaccounted money as alleged by the Assessing Officer. The ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate such material but confirmed the impugned addition. With regard to the addition of Rs.45,00,000/-, the ld.AR submitted that the assessee submitted a detailed explanation before the ld.CIT(A) and with regard to receipt of Rs.4,00,000/- from Jayashree.M in March 2012, it was submitted that this sum is reflected in the bank statement of SB account by a credit entry dated 29.03.2012 and it represents income earned in the course of carrying on the business and included in the gross receipts admitted in the return. However, the ld.CIT(A) without examining the material decided the issue against the assessee. Therefore, the ld.AR submitted that the ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the nature of transactions based on the material evidence available on record and hence his decision is wrong, erroneous, unjustified and not sustainable in law and hence pleaded to allow the appeal.Per contra, the ld.DR supported the order of the lower authorities.
4 -: 4. We heard the rival submissions, gone through the material and find that the ld.CIT(A) has not considered the impugned material in arriving his decision. In the facts and circumstances, we restore these matters to the ld.CIT(A) for due consideration and proper decision. The ld.CIT(A) would after affording due opportunity to the assessee would dispose the issues in accordance with law.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the Court on 13th November, 2019 in Chennai.