SH. C. MURUGAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

Shri K.G.Raghunath, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee own two buses and plying the same from Chennai to Sayalkudi. The money collected for plying the buses was deposited in the bank account. In fact, the assessee has filed the additional evidence before the CIT(A) with regard to the trip seat, the copies of the bank statement, etc.

However, the CIT(A) refused to admit the additional evidence filed by the assessee. The assessee has also furnished the details of cash deposited in the bank on various dates. Since the CIT(A) refused to admit the additional evidence, he confirmed the addition made by the assessing officer. Therefore, the learned counsel submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the file of the assessment officer for re-examination.

On the contrary, Shri Shiva Srinivas, the learned department representative submitted that the assessing office has given number of opportunities to the assessee to furnish the necessary details. The assessee did not cooperate with the assessing officer for completing the assessment. Even before the CIT(A) sufficient opportunity was given by the CIT(A). However, the assessee has filed the additional evidence on the last day. Referring to the order of the CIT(A), the learned department representative submitted that the CIT(A) in fact called for remand report on the basis of the written submissions filed by the assessee. However, the additional evidence filed by the assessee was rejected since the same was filed at the fake end of the hearing. The assessee has not availed the opportunities given by the assessing officer and CIT(A). Therefore, it may not be necessary to remit the file to the assessing officer for re-consideration.

We have considered the rival submissions on either side and also perused the material available on record. It is not in dispute that the assessee plying two buses from Chennai to Sayalkudi. The assessee claims that the proceeds of the money collected for plying buses from Chennai to Sayalkudi was deposited in the bank account on various dates. In fact, the assessee filed the additional material before the CIT(A) to establish that the money was collected in plying buses. However, the CIT(A) rejected the claim of the assessee. It is also not in dispute that on the basis of the written submissions filed by the assessee, the CIT(A) called for a remand report. This Tribunal is of the considered opinion that when the assessee filed the additional evidence with regard to plying of buses as a supporting material, the same ought to have been examined by the authorities below. Unfortunately, the CIT(A) refused to admit the additional evidence and rejected the claim of the assessee.

The Income Tax Act being a special enactment for computing the assessable income, levy tax thereon and collection of tax, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that both the authorities below ought to have examined all the material available on record including one filed by the assessee. No doubt, the assessing officer as well as CIT(A) has given opportunity to the assessee.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is Allowed for Statistical Purposes.