Tamilnadu Real Estates Pvt Ltd., ... vs Department Of Income Tax

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, CHENNAI ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद य एवं ी वी. दग ु ा$ राव, या%यक सद य केसम&

BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.1374/Mds/2014 %नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year : 2007-08

The Assistant Commissioner of M/s Tamilnadu Real Estates Pvt. Income Tax, Ltd., Company Circle - III(1), v. No.15, Nungambakkam High Rd., Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 034.

PAN : AABCT 5912 E (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

अपीलाथ+ क. ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT ,-यथ+ क. ओर से/Respondent by : Shri G. Seetharaman, CA

सन ु वाई क. तार ख/Date of Hearing : 05.02.2015 घोषणा क. तार ख/Date of Pronouncement: 20.03.2015

आदे श /O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the

order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Chennai,

dated 30.12.2013 relevant to the assessment year 2007-08. 2 I.T.A. No.1374/Mds/2014

2. Facts in brief are that the assessee, a private limited

company, filed its return of income declaring a total income of

`2,22,24,942/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed

under Section 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').

Subsequently, after due process, the assessment was completed

under Section 143(3) of the Act. In the assessment order, the A.O.,

while discussing the issue involved in this appeal, observed that the

assessee-company has shown a sum of `1,03,54,011/- as "other

income" in the Profit & Loss account for the year ended 31.03.2007.

The assessee-company is also doing joint-venture business with

Wahab Chambers Bangalore. This has not been reported in the

Audit Report. The assessee-company has also not produced any

details of account with regard to the same. In view of the above, the

A.O. has estimated 10% of such income as expenditure and 90% of

such income, which works out to ` 93,18,610/-, treated as income

from other sources.

3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.

CIT(Appeals). The Ld. CIT(Appeals) without considering the issue

in detail, simply deleted the addition to the extent of `93,18,610/-. 3 I.T.A. No.1374/Mds/2014

4. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before us. The

Ld. D.R. has submitted that in his appellate order, the Ld.

CIT(Appeals) has not discussed this issue at all. It has to go back

to the A.O. because no details were submitted before the A.O.

5. On the other hand, the Ld. A.R. strongly supported the order

passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals).

6. We have heard both sides and perused the records and

gone through the orders of the authorities below. When a sum of

`1,03,54,011/- has been shown as "other income" by the assessee,

no details were produced before the A.O. As per the A.O., this

amount was not reported in the Audit Report. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)

without considering the details, simply deleted the addition made by

the A.O. We, therefore, set aside the order passed by the Ld.

CIT(Appeals) and remit the issue back to the file of the A.O. to

examine the issue afresh, after considering the details filed by the

assessee and after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to

the assessee.

7. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for

statistical purposes.

4 I.T.A. No.1374/Mds/2014

Order pronounced on Friday, the 20th of March, 2015 at

Chennai.

Sd/- sd/- (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (वी. दग ु ा$ राव) (A. Mohan Alankamony) (V. Durga Rao) लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या%यक सद य/Judicial Member

चे नई/Chennai, th >दनांक/Dated, the 20 March, 2015.

Kri.

आदे श क. ,%त@लAप अBेAषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant 2. ,-यथ+/Respondent

3. आयकर आयुCत (अपील)/CIT(A)-III, Chennai-34

4. आयकर आयुCत/CIT, Chennai-III, Chennai-34

5. Aवभागीय ,%त%न ध/DR

6. गाड$ फाईल/GF.