N.R.Rangabashyam, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1014/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7157 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHE NNAI . , . ! ! ! ! , ' ' ' ' # # # # BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.1014/MDS/2014 ' ! $! / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 SHRI N.R. RANGABASHYAM, NO. 93, YAMUNA STREET, CHINMAYA NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 111. [PAN: ADIPR8288E] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD IV(4), CHENNAI 600 034. ( %& %& %& %& /APPELLANT ) ( '(%& '(%& '(%& '(%& / RESPONDENT ) %& ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, C.A. '(%& ) * / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S. DAS GUPTA, JCIT ) + / DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2014 ,$ ) + /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.12.2014 - - - - / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) V, CHENNAI, DA TED 02.12.2013 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CAB OPERATIONS AND FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME BY DECLARING TO TAL INCOME OF .3,09,800/-. THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A.. .. .NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 1014 014014 014/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 2 RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PROCESSED UNDER SE CTION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND TH ROUGH CASS INFORMATION FURNISHED IN AIR ABOUT DEPOSITING CASH OF .10,54,000/- IN ASSESSEES SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH CITY UNION BANK LTD., CHINMAYA NA GAR, CHENNAI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2 ) DATED 11.09.12008 AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 12.09.2008. IN THE ABSENC E OF COMPLIANCE, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WITH ANNEXURE WAS I SSUED ON 29.10.2009 CALLING FOR COMPLIANCE BY 12.11.2009. HOWEVER, NO ONE APPEA RED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLE TED THE ASSESSMENT BY ADDING .10,54,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FRESH EVIDENCE U NDER RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES AND THE SAME WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR REMAND REPORT. THE LD. CIT(A) SENT THE REMAND REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR H IS COMMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY REPLY. IN THE ABSENCE OF REPLY, T HE LD. CIT(A) MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE US UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES AND PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A.. .. .NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 1014 014014 014/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 3 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTE D THE ORDERS PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. IN THIS CA SE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION BASED ON THE AIR INFORMATION RECEI VED BY HIM. AFTER RECEIVING INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESS EE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY HI M WITH CITY UNION BANK LTD., CHINMAYA NAGAR, CHENNAI. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESPO NDED TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. UNDER THESE CIRCUM STANCES, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. 8. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER RECEIVING THE SAME FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT W AS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REPLY. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO REPLY TO THE REMAND R EPORT SENT BY THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, BY FIL ING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSE E AND PLEADED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ACCEPTED. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CO NSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, OBTAINED REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SEND IT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR REPLY, BUT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RESPO NDED. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A.. .. .NO. NO. NO. NO.1 11 1014 014014 014/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/1 11 14 44 4 4 BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION THAT THE AS SESSEE SHOULD SUBMIT HIS REPLY ON THE REMAND REPORT, WHICH WAS ALREADY SEND BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE REPLY OF THE A SSESSEE SHALL PASS ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 12 TH OF DECEMBER, 2014 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (V. DURGA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 12.12.2014 VM/- - ) ''+/0 10$+ /COPY TO: 1. %& / APPELLANT, 2. '(%& / RESPONDENT, 3. 2 ( ) /CIT(A), 4. 2 /CIT, 5. 03 ''+' /DR & 6. 4! 5 /GF.