Napa Radhakrishnan v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 5, Chennai
[Citation -2016-LL-0928-123]

Citation 2016-LL-0928-123
Appellant Name Napa Radhakrishnan
Respondent Name The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 5, Chennai
Court ITAT-Chennai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 28/09/2016
Assessment Year 2010-11
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags indexed cost of acquisition • business of trading • sale consideration • education cess • demand notice • advance tax
Bot Summary: The assessee filed his return of income admitting total income of.14,97,250/-. The return filed by the assessee was processed under section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Act in short raising a demand of.3,01,420/-. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny to examine the genuineness of short term capital gains under section 111A of the Act and to examine the long term capital gains with regard to sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition and accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued and served on the assessee on 03.09.2011. In response to the notices, the details filed by the assessee was examined and the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by determining taxable income at.3,51,040/-. The assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act dated 01.02.2013 is reproduced as under: ASSESSMENT ORDER The assessee is engaged in the business of trading futures and options and commission agent. For the assessment year 2010-11, the assessee filed the return of income on 18-09-2010 admitting a total income of Rs.14,97,250/- and the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 raising a demand of Rs.3,01,420/-. The return filed by the assessee was originally assessed by the Business Circle VII and thereafter, as per the directions of the ld.


IN INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI Before Shri A. Mohan Alankamony, Accountant Member & Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Judicial Member I.T.A.No.839/Mds/2016 Assessment Year :2010-11 Shri Napa Radhakrishnan, Assistant Commissioner of No. 9 (Old No. 24), Shanmugarayan Vs. Income Tax, Street, Old Washermenpet, Non-Corporate Circle 5, Chennai 600 021. Chennai 6. [PAN: AAJPR4332F] (Appellant) ( Respondent) Appellant by : Shri G. Baskar, Advocate Respondent by : Shri A. Nataraja, JCIT Date of hearing : 24.08.2016 Date of Pronounce ment : 28.09.2016 O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by assessee is directed against order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 5, Chennai, dated 28.01.2016 relevant to assessment year 2010-11. only effective ground raised in appeal of assessee is that ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming action of Assessing Officer in denying credit for prepaid taxes, namely advance tax and TDS referable to income assessed. 2 I.T.A. No.839/M/16 2. Brief facts of case are that assessee is individual and engaged in business of trading futures and options and commission agent. assessee filed his return of income admitting total income of .14,97,250/-. return filed by assessee was processed under section 143(1) of Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act in short] raising demand of .3,01,420/-. Thereafter, case of assessee was selected for scrutiny to examine genuineness of short term capital gains under section 111A of Act and to examine long term capital gains with regard to sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition and accordingly, notice under section 143(2) of Act was issued and served on assessee on 03.09.2011. In response to notices, details filed by assessee was examined and assessment was completed under section 143(3) of Act by determining taxable income at .3,51,040/-. 3. assessee carried matter in appeal before ld. CIT(A). After considering written submissions filed by AR of assessee as well as considering facts of case, ld. CIT(A) dismissed appeal file by assessee. 4. On being aggrieved, assessee is in appeal before Tribunal. ld. Counsel for assessee has submitted that authorities below 3 I.T.A. No.839/M/16 have not given credit for TDS and advance tax of .4,32,592/- and pleaded that suitable directions may be given to Assessing Officer. 5. On other hand, ld. DR supported orders of authorities below. 6. We have heard both sides, perused materials on record and gone through orders of authorities below. assessment order passed under section 143(3) of Act dated 01.02.2013 is reproduced as under: ASSESSMENT ORDER assessee is engaged in business of trading futures and options and commission agent. For assessment year 2010-11, assessee filed return of income on 18-09-2010 admitting total income of Rs.14,97,250/- and same was processed u/s 143(1) of Income-tax Act, 1961 raising demand of Rs.3,01,420/-. Thereafter, case was selected for scrutiny under CASS to examine genuineness of short term capital gains u/s ll1A of IT. Act and to examine long term capital gains with regard to sale consideration and indexed cost of acquisition. Notice u/s 143(2) was issued and served on assessee on 03/09/2011. case was originally assessed by ACIT, Business Circle-VII, Chennai. Vide Notification in C.No.7071/CIT-VII/2012-13 of Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai-VII, Chennai dated 28/12/2012, scrutiny assessment for A.Y.2010-11 in this case was transferred to this office. Fresh notice u/s.143(2) issued and served on assessee. In response to notice issued, Shri D. Purushothaman, of M/s. R. Bupathy & Co, Chennai appeared on various dates and filed details called for and case was discussed. After discussion and verification of details filed by A. R., assessment is completed on basis of income returned. 4 I.T.A. No.839/M/16 Total income . 14,97,250 Income tax . 3,53,174 Add: Education Cess . 10,595 . 3,63,769 Less: TDS . 81,264 Balance payable . 2,82,505 Less: AT paid . 30,000 . 2,52,505 Add: Interest u/s 234B . 88,375 Interest u/s 234C . 10,155 Total payable . 3,51,040 (rounded off) Demand Notice u/s. 156 enclosed herewith. We are of opinion that above assessment order passed by Assessing Officer is very cryptic and not reflected details of investment made. return filed by assessee was originally assessed by Business Circle VII and thereafter, as per directions of ld. CIT, Chennai VII, Chennai, scrutiny assessment was carried out by Business Ward VII(3). Before us, in form of paper book, assessee has filed Form 26AS of INDIAREIT Fund Advisors P. Ltd. and other particulars. In view of above, we set aside order passed by ld. CIT(A) and remit matter back to Assessing Officer to verify details as filed before Tribunal and decide issue afresh in accordance with law and pass speaking order allowing opportunity of hearing to assessee. Thus, ground raised by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 5 I.T.A. No.839/M/16 7. In result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 28th September, 2016 at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (DUVVURU RL REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, 28.09.2016 Vm/- Copy to: 1. Appellant, 2. Respondent, 3. CIT(A), 4. CIT, 5. DR & 6. GF. Napa Radhakrishnan v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Non-Corporate Circle 5, Chennai
Report Error