V.C.Raam Sukesh (Individual), CHENNAI V. ITO, Pondicherry

ITA 1359/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8569 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 22-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARMINDER IRS
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Assessment record; Non passing of speaking order
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , ! . ! ' # , $#% BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1359/MDS/2014 $ & !'& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-2011 SHRI. V.C. RAAM SUKESH, G1, GROUND FLOOR, SHREE APARTMENT, NO.31, ROMAIN ROLLAND STREET, PUDUCHERRY 605 001. [PAN AHKPR 1504R] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(2), PONDICHERRY. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) () * + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. PHILIP GEORGE, ADVOCATE ,-() * + /RESPONDENT BY : SMT. PARMINDER, IRS, ' ! * . / DATE OF HEARING : 22-06-2016 /0' * . / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15-09-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PUDUCHERRY DATE D 12.03.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 PASSED U/S.143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). ITA NO.1359/MDS/2014 :- 2 -: 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.02.20 11 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF :4,74,175/- CONSISTING HOUSE PROPERTY INC OME, INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, UNDER SCRUTINY NORMS THE CASE WAS SELECTED AND NOTICE U/S.143(2) O F THE ACT WAS ISSUED. A NOTICE U/S.142(1) WITH QUESTIONNAIRE OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 09.10.2012. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICES, THE LD. A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TI ME, PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DETAILS. THE LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAVING SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME AND PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143 (3) OF THE ACT DATED 14.12.2012. SUBSEQUENT TO ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, PUDUCHERRY ISSUED SHO W CAUSE NOTICE UNDER THE POWERS CONFERRED U/S.263 OF THE ACT AND I SSUES WERE EXPLAINED IN NOTICE WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVE STMENTS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-2010 IN THE MUTUAL FUNDS AGGREG ATING TO :36,29,435/- AND WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS ARE NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION 2.1 ON THE SECOND ISSUE, THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCONTINUED OFFERING RENTAL INCOME FROM PROPERTY AND WAS SETTLED AS P ER FAMILY SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT. THE LD. CIT ALSO CALLED FOR E XPLANATION ON NON ITA NO.1359/MDS/2014 :- 3 -: INCLUSION OF BANK ACCOUNTS AND BANK TRANSACTIONS IN VOLVING INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS, AND ALSO BALANCE SHEET DOES NOT REFLECT THE CASH BALANCE AND DRAWINGS TO MEET THE ROUTINE DAY TO DAY FAMILY EXPENSES AND DISPUTED ACTUAL PROFIT DISCLOSED AS P ER INCOME AND EXPENDITURE ACCOUNT AND FINANCIAL POSITION AS PER B ALANCE SHEET. IN COMPLIANCE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ON 29.05.2013, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS EXPLAINING THAT THE LD. CIT HAS FORMED AN OPINION WERE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONCLUDED ASSESS MENT WITHOUT PROPER ENQUIRY ON VARIOUS DISPUTED POINTS REFERRED IN THE NOTICE. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO SUBMITTED LETTER S BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON 29.10.2012, 05.11.2012 AND 26. 11.2012. IN COMPLIANCE QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS FILED AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE LD. AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER H AS PASSED AN ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER HAVING SATISFIED WITH T HE SUBMISSIONS OF DETAILS IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT WERE DETAILS WERE EXPLAINED. ON THE POINTS RAISED BY COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX ON INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT INVESTMENTS ARE MADE FROM HUF FUNDS AND ADMITTED IN HUF RETURN AND THE ASSESSMENT OF HUF WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH DETAILS OF INVESTMEN TS AND THE BANK ITA NO.1359/MDS/2014 :- 4 -: ACCOUNT TRANSACTION OF MUTUAL FUNDS; AND THE DISPU TE HAS ARISED DUE TO FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PAN AND THEREFORE INFOR MATION WAS WRONGLY REFLECTED IN FORM 26AS. ON THE DISPUTED ISSUE OF PROPERTY INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCONTINUED OFFERING RENTAL INCOME FR OM PROPERTY AT VIVEKANDANAGAR, PUDUCHERRY WERE IT WAS EXPLAINED T HAT THE PROPERTY WAS SETTLED IN THE FAVOUR OF SMT. P. CHANDRALEKHA AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED NOTE EXPLAINING THAT THE PROPER TY WAS INHERITED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER FROM DECEASED MOTHER SMT. C. MADHAVI ON SUCCESSION. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE PROPERTY WAS SETT LED IN FAVOUR OF SMT. P. CHANDRALEKHA WIFE OF BROTHER THROUGH FAMIL Y SETTLEMENT DEED DATED 30.06.2009. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE CONSIDERED R ENTAL INCOME FOR THREE MONTHS. WHEREAS SMT. P. CHANDRALEKHA IS SEPA RATELY ASSESSED TO TAX AND DISCLOSED THE INFORMATION AND OFFERING RENTAL INCOME IN HER INCOME TAX RETURN. ON THE NEXT DISPUTED ISSUE, TH E ASSESSEE IS NOT CARRYING ON BUSINESS IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND TH E INCOME IS DERIVED AS PARTNER IN PARTNERSHIP FIRM VINBROS AND CO WERE ASSESSEE HAS REPRESENTING IN HUF CAPACITY. THE ASSESSEES MOTHE R WAS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND WEALTH TAX AND DIED ON 13.09.2008. A ND SHE DIED INESTATE LEAVING HER TWO SONS AND THEREFORE ASSES SEE HAS ONE HALF SHARE OF PROPERTIES IN HUF AND OTHER HALF IN INDIV IDUAL CAPACITY. FURTHER, THESE FACTS WERE BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND EXPLAINED WITH SUPPORTING DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCE AND FILED DETAILS OF INHERITED PROPERTIES. ON TH E ISSUE OF SOURCES OF ITA NO.1359/MDS/2014 :- 5 -: FUNDS FOR MEETING FAMILY OBLIGATIONS, IT WAS EXPLA INED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER IN VINBROS AND CO WHICH IS AS SESSED TO TAX SEPARATELY ALONGWITH HIS BROTHER AND THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWALS FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND WERE DULY ACCOUNTED A ND DEBITED TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE WITHDRAWAL S WERE UTILIZED FOR FAMILY MAINTENANCE EXPENSES ALONG WITH OTHER SAVIN GS. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED AND CONTESTED THE JURISDICTION OF REVISION THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE PR OPER ENQUIRES AND APPLIED HIS MIND ON RELEVANT MATERIAL PAPERS BEF ORE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER AND RELIED ON JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS SATISFIED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THOUGH N OT REFLECTED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ISSUE OF NOTICE OF REVISIO N U/SEC. 263 OF THE ACT IS NOT ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX VERIFIED THE DOCUMENTS AND CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT RECORD AND IS OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUPPORTED THE CASE WITH DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCE OF BANK STATEMENT ISSUED BY BANK INSTEAD SUPPORTED ON TYPED STATEMENTS. FURTHER, NO EXPLANATIONS WERE PROVIDED IN RESPECT OF ASSETS OWNED BY ASSESSEES MOTHER BEFORE THE DEMISE AND THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF PROPERTY INHERITED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT AND ALSO THE INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS IN INDIVIDUAL AND H UF CAPACITY IS REQUIRED TO BE VERIFIED AS THERE IS INADEQUACY OF DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EX PLAIN THE ITA NO.1359/MDS/2014 :- 6 -: TRANSACTIONS OF INDIVIDUAL OR HUF AND THE TRANSAC TIONS WITH FAMILY MEMBERS. THE LD. CIT OBSERVED THAT ON INHERITANCE A ND PARTITION OF PROPERTIES THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO INVESTIGATE PROPERLY AND EXTENSIVELY IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND THA T THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) DATED 14.12.2012 IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE I NTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND SET ASIDE WITH A DIRECTION TO DO PROPER INVESTIGATION AND EXAMINATION AND PASSED AN ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT DATED 12.03.2014. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPE AL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 3. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ARG UED GROUND OF CHALLENGING THE JURISDICTION THAT THE LD. CIT DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO INVOKE PROVISIONS U/S.263 OF THE AC T AND THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT AGAINST THE INTER EST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX PRESUMED THAT TH E ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 14.12.2012 IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS NOT APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ENTI RE MATERIAL IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE U/S. 142(1) OF THE ACT AND VARIOUS LETTERS ARE FILED. THE INFORMATION SUB MITTED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE VITAL AND THE LD. ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS APPLIED HIS MIND AND TOOK COGNIZANCE OF THE ISSUES AND PASSED THE ORDER. FURTHER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ACTION IN DIRECTING THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ENQUIRI ES IS NOT IN ITA NO.1359/MDS/2014 :- 7 -: ACCORDANCE WITH LAW HAS EXCEEDED JURISDICTION FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACTS ON RECORD THAT ALL SUBSTA NTIAL MATERIALS ARE FILED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND PRAYED FOR QUA SHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENTS WITH JUDICIAL DEC ISIONS. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE INVESTMENTS ARE DISCLOSED IN THE CAPACITY OF HUF AND WAS DULY EXPLAINED AND IS ASSESSED TO TAX. THE DISCONTINUANCE OF RENTAL INCO ME AT VIVEKANANDA NAGAR PROPERTY, PUDUCHERRY WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE P ROPERTY WAS ACQUIRED ON INHERITANCE ON DEMISE OF MOTHER AND SET TLED IN FAVOUR OF SISTER IN LAW AND THE RENTAL INCOME FROM SAID PROP ERTY WAS OFFERED ONLY FOR THREE MONTHS. WHEREAS SISTER IN LAW SMT. P. CHANDRALEKHA ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND WEALTH TAX IS FILING RE TURN OF INCOME AND WEALTH AND DISCLOSING RENTAL INCOME FROM THE SAID PROPERTY AND WAS DULY EXPLAINED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED ON THE DISPUTE OF CASH IN HAND AND DRAWINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER WITH VINBROS & CO AN D SAID PARTNERSHIP IS ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX WITH HIGHER INCOME. THE FUNDS ARE WITHDRAWN FROM ASSESSEES CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVIN G SUFFICIENT DRAWINGS IN PARTNERSHIP AND UTILIZED FOR HOUSEHOLD AND MEETING FAMILY OBLIGATIONS AND SUPPORTED WITH LEGAL DECISIONS AND FILED DETAILS OF LETTERS IN PAPER BOOK AND PRAYED FOR QUASHING THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. ITA NO.1359/MDS/2014 :- 8 -: 4. CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND VEHEMENTLY OPPOS ED TO THE GROUNDS AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED. THE LD. AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE EMPHASIZED ON THE JURISDICTION OF PROVISIONS OF S EC.263 OF THE ACT AND THE DIRECTIONS OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X TO DO INVESTIGATION AND EXAMINATION. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX SHALL SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.14 3(3) OF THE ACT ONLY WERE THE LD.AO HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND NOR CONDUC TED ANY ENQUIRY BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE PERUSED THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX WERE THE EXPLANATIONS ARE INCORPORATED ON DISPUTE D ISSUE AND THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED THAT THE INFORM ATION WAS ALREADY PRODUCED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS AND THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING SATISFIED WITH DETAILS HAS PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITH DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. TH E LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE REPLY FILE D IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AT PAGE 2 OF PAPER BOOK WITH LETTERS D ATED 29.10.2012, 05.11.2012 AND 26.11.2012 AND REFLECTED AT PAGE NOS .6 TO 10 ALONGWITH COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS OF ASSE SSEES HUF AT PAGE 11 AND FORM NO. 26AS AND RECONCILIATION OF TD S CLAIM IN ITA NO.1359/MDS/2014 :- 9 -: CAPACITY OF INDIVIDUAL AND HUF. THE INFORMATION SU BMITTED IS EXHAUSTIVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED SAID INFORMAT ION BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH CONSIST OF VOLUMINOUS TRA NSACTION OF MUTUAL FUNDS, BANK ACCOUNTS, PROPERTIES AND BANK DEPOSITS . FURTHER AT PAGE 49 OF PAPER BOOK, NOTICE U/S.142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ALOGNWITH QUESTIONNAIRE ANNEXURE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R CALLING FOR CERTAIN DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED T HE DIRECTIONS AND SUBMITTED INFORMATION, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER H AS SUMMARILY ACCEPTED THE DETAILS AND PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENTS W ITH THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND VEHEMENTLY EMPHASIZED THAT LD. CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX DOES NOT HAVE JURISDICTION TO SET ASIDE AND DIRECT ENQUIRY. WE ALSO PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE NO.53 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS CRYPTIC AND THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS NOT MADE ANY REFERENCE OF THESE VOLUMINOUS SUBMISSIONS NOR RECO RDED ANY SATISFACTION NOTE THAT THE DISPUTED ISSUES RAISED BY THE LD. CIT WERE ALREADY DEALT IN ASSESSMENT ORDER PROCEEDINGS WITH DUE APPLICATION OF MIND. NO DOUBT THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE A PPEARED ON VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING BUT THE CONCLUSION WAS MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN ACCEPTING THE RETURNED INCOME WITHOUT R EFERENCE TO THE VOLUMINOUS TRANSACTIONS OF MUTUAL FUND, RENTAL INC OME, DETAILS OF HUF AND CASH WITHDRAWALS. WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO UNDERSTAND WHETHER THESE FACTS ARE BONAFIDELY ACCEPTED BY THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER. THE ITA NO.1359/MDS/2014 :- 10 -: LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED STEROTYPE ORDER AND THE ASSESSE E HAS FILED DETAILS WHICH SHALL BE FORMING PART OF ASSESSMENT RECORD A ND HAS TO BE EXAMINED. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE COUL D NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE INFORMATION FILED WA S BROUGHT ON RECORD. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THAT THE INFORMATION WAS FILED BEFORE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER AND DATES WERE RECORDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESP ECT OF LETTERS FILED. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CANNOT GIVE DIR ECTION FOR CONDUCTING ANOTHER INVESTIGATION. WE CONSIDERING T HE APPARENT FACTS, MATERIALS ON RECORD, JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND PRACTIC AL ASPECTS, THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING VARIOUS SOURCES OF INCOME AND H AS CATEGORICALLY MAINTAINED AND SUBMITTED INFORMATION BEFORE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER ON MUTUAL FUNDS INVESTMENTS, PROPERTIES AND BANK ACCOU NTS AS SEEN FROM THE LETTERS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE DISPUTE A RISES PRIMA FACIE ON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH DOES NOT GIVE A COMPLETE PICTURE BEING A NON SPEAKING ORDER. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX HAS DIRECTED INVESTIGATI ON AND EXAMINATION ON INVESTMENTS IN MUTUAL FUNDS AND DISC LOSURE OF RENTAL INCOME AND CASH ON HAND. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T SUCH DIRECTION SHALL NOT STOP THE ASSESSEE FROM SUBMITTING THE CLA RIFICATIONS AND SHOULD NOT BE PUT IN A WORST POSITION. THE LD. CO MMISSIONER OF ITA NO.1359/MDS/2014 :- 11 -: INCOME TAX ISSUED SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS TO THE LD. A SSESSING OFFICER BUT SET ASIDE OF ORDER U/SEC. 143(3) OF THE ACT WITH SP ECIFIC DIRECTIONS TO CONDUCT FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND EXAMINATION CANN OT BE ACCEPTED AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ORDER HAS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURE JUSTICE. WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND REMIT THE FILE TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE AFRESH AND PASS SPEAKING ORDER ON MERITS AND THE A SSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED WITH ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFO RE PASSING THE ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 15TH DAY OF SE PTEMBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ' # ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI 2 / DATED:15.09.2016 KV 3 * ,$.45 65'. / COPY TO: 1 . () / APPELLANT 3. ' 7. () / CIT(A) 5. 5!:; ,$.$ / DR 2. ,-() / RESPONDENT 4. ' 7. / CIT 6. ;& < / GF