Smt. S.Poornajothi, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1306/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7947 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 09-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI JCIT
• Assessee Lawyers: PADMANABHANC A
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . , ! , ' #$ % , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NOS.1306 & 1307 /MDS./2012 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2002-03 & 2003-04) SMT.S.POORNAJOTHI , NO.97,SECOND CROSS ST., VENKATESH NAGAR,VIRUGAMBAKKAM, CHENNAI 600 092. VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I(2), CHENNAI. PAN AFNPP 7427 A ( () / APPELLANT ) ( %*() / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR.PADMANABHAN,C.A / RESPONDENT BY : MR.A.B.KOLI,JCIT, D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 16.02.2016 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.02.2016 + / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGG RIEVED BY THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A)-I, ITA NO.1306 & 1307 /MDS/2012 2 CHENNAI DATED 01.03.2012 PASSED UNDER SEC.143(3) RE AD WITH SECTION 153C & 153A OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2002-03 & 2003-04. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAD CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF ` 7,45,000/- (A.Y 2002-03) AND ` 19,75,000/- (A.Y 2003- 04) TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN LAND AT KOLA THUR. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE SOURCES F OR INVESTMENTS WERE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. FROM SALARY AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND NOT GIVEN CREDIT BY THE AO COMPLETELY. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REALLY SHOWING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SALARY F ROM PAST SEVERAL YEARS IN HER RETURN OF INCOME, WHICH WAS NOT EXAMIN ED BY THE AO FOR GIVING CREDIT TO THESE SOURCES. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE AO FOR EXAMINING THE SOURCE F OR THE INVESTMENTS AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1306 & 1307 /MDS/2012 3 THUS WE RESTORE THESE ISSUES IN THE TWO APPEALS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER THOROUGH EXAMINATION AND AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 & 2003-04 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 19 TH OF FEBRUARY,2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ( ' #$ % ) ((CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 19 TH FEBRUARY,2016 . K S SUNDARAM. '#$$ %&$'& /COPY TO: $ 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. $ ($)* /CIT(A) 4. $ ( /CIT 5. &+,$ - /DR 6. ,.$/ /GF