R.Pannerselvam, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1085/CHNY/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 61095 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 year(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 1995-1996
• Appeal Filed On: 26-04-2004
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SIBENDU MOHARANA IRS
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Opportunity of being heard; Block assessment
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1085(MDS)/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1995-96 SHRI R.PANEERSELVAM, 1A, BALASUBRAMANIAM COLONY, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI-600 004. PAN/GI NO.24703P. VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD XV(2), CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : DR. SIBENDU MOHARANA, IRS, C IT. DATE OF HEARING : 23 RD MAY, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 RD MAY, 2012 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 1995-96. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-XI I AT CHENNAI, DATED 27-2-2004 AND ARISES OUT OF THE ASSE SSMENT - - ITA 1085 OF 2004 2 COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3), READ WITH SECTION 1 47 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER CONSIDERED BY THE INCOM E- TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B-BENCH, CHENNAI THROUGH IT S COMMON ORDER DATED 8-12-2004, DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1085 AND 1086(MDS)/2004 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 1995-96 AND 2000-01. ONE OF THE FINDINGS ARR IVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID ORDER FOR THE IMPUGNED ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 IS THAT THE MATERIALS SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH COULD NOT BE UTILIZED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BC ON THE GROUND OF LIMITATION, CA NNOT BE USED AGAIN FOR THE PURPOSE OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UN DER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. ANOTHER FINDING ARRIVED AT BY THE TRIBUNAL IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY PROOF FOR SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE, THE SAME CANNOT BE REASSESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3), READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT FOR THE REASON THAT THE SEIZED MATERIALS CANNOT BE USED TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT TO DETERMINE THE INCOME ESCAP ED. 3. IN SUBSTANCE, BOTH THE ABOVE FINDINGS ARE ONE A ND THE SAME AND THE FINDINGS WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE TH E HONBLE - - ITA 1085 OF 2004 3 MADRAS HIGH COURT IN TAX CASE(APPEAL) NO.654 OF 200 5. THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT DISPOSED OF THE TAX CASE( APPEAL) THROUGH THE JUDGMENT OF THEIR LORDSHIPS PASSED ON 2 6-7-2011, WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS SET ASIDE THE OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE TRIBUN AL TO CONSIDER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE MERITS OF THE REASSESSMENT MADE AND PASS ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW. IT IS THUS THAT THE MATTER IS NOW BEFORE US FOR THE SE COND TIME. 4. NOBODY APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US AT T HE TIME OF HEARING INSPITE OF SERVICE OF NOTICE. DR. SIBENDU MOHARANA, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, A PPEARED FOR THE REVENUE AND ARGUED THE CASE. 5. AS OBSERVED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAD JUST HELD T HAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS VALID AND AT THE SAME TIME DID NOT CONSIDER THE MERITS OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THIS APPEAL. AS SUCH AN ADJUDICATORY ORDER HAS NOT BEEN PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) ON THE MERI TS OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS CONSIDERED F IT AND PROPER THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- - - ITA 1085 OF 2004 4 TAX(APPEALS) TO DETERMINE THE APPEAL ON MERITS OF T HE CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS FILE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE ASSESSEE SHAL L BE GIVEN AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN RESULT, THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME O F HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 23 RD OF MAY, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (V.DURGA RAO) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED, THE 23 RD MAY, 2012. V.A.P. COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GF.