SAMBANDAM AND COMPANY Vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal filed by the assessee under Section 260 A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act' for brevity) is directed against the order dated 03.04.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Madras, 'C' Bench, ('Tribunal' for brevity) in I.T.A. No. 1256/Mds/2008 for the assessment year 1993-1994. The appeal has been filed, raising the following Substantial Questions of Law.

(2.) We have elaborately heard Ms. Lakshmi Sriram, learned counsel for the appellant/assessee and Mr. M. Swaminathan, learned Senior standing counsel for the respondent/Revenue assisted by Ms. V. Pushpa, learned standing counsel for the Revenue. The short issue which falls for consideration is whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer on the ground that in respect of three persons, there is unexplained credit and the same was justified? and whether the Tribunal was right in affirming the said order passed by the Assessing officer? The case has had a checkered history. The assessment year under consideration is, AY 1993-1994. Earlier round of litigation has made upto the Tribunal to enable the assessee to produce six sundry creditors before the Assessing Officer for recording statement. The Assessing Officer found that from the 'Anuppu Account' there were several sundry creditors and the assessee stated that they have purchased goods from them. There were totally six persons namely, Pachaiyappan, Selvam, Nainar Mohammed, Jayapal, R. Gajendran and Mani. The assessee was able to convince the Assessing Officer in respect of three persons. However, the Assessing Officer, at the first instance, did not give any opportunity to enable the assessee to examine or cross examine the persons. However on remand by the Tribunal in the earlier round of litigation, the assessee took steps to summon Nainar Mohammed, Selvam and Mani and notice sent by the Assessing Officer to Nainar Mohammed returned with a postal endorsement 'left'.

(3.) The argument of Ms. Lakshmi Sriram, learned counsel for appellant is that in respect of two persons, the Assessing Officer did not give any specific dates to enable the assessee to produce those two persons before the Assessing Officer for recording statement. It was further argued that in respect of the very same persons, for the earlier assessment year namely, 1992-1993 and for the subsequent assessment year 1994-95, the Assessing Officer accepted those entries in the assessee's account in the name of the same sundry creditors, as genuine. Therefore, there was no reason as to why for the assessment year under consideration, AY 1993-1994, the same should not be accepted. It is the further argument that the Tribunal has erroneously recorded, for the earlier assessment year, the addition in respect of Naninar Mohammed, Selvam and Mani was confirmed.