G.Udaya Kumar, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1391/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96111 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A B KOLI
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . , . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU R L REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 1391 /MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :200 7 - 0 8 SHRI G. UDAYA KUMAR, 19, II FLOOR, SESHAN ENCLAVE, GEORGE AVENUE, KASTHRI ESTATE, TEYNAMPET, CHENNAI 600 018. [PAN: A A I P U1283D ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFF ICER, BUSINESS WARD XV(1) , CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A. B. K O LI, J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 2 8 . 0 9 .201 5 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 30 . 0 9 .201 5 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 4 , CHENNAI , DATED 25 . 0 3 .20 1 5 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 7 - 0 8 . 2 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL , FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME BY ADMITTING NIL INCOME AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF .3,65,436/ - . THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECT ION 143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT]. THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY I.T.A. NO . 1391 /M/ 15 2 AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. AFTER DUE PROCESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT .7,54,790/ - , (I) DISALLOWING INTEREST OF .3,34,444/ - AGAINST PROPERTY INCOME STATING THAT THE INTEREST PAID FOR THE CURRENT YEAR ALONE IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 24 OF THE ACT, (II) TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF .3,65,435/ - AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, (III) ADDING .3,78,881 / - BEING DIFFERENCE IN REPAYMENTS TO HOUSING LOAN SHOWN BY THE BANK AND THAT BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . D URING THE COURSE OF FIRST APPE L L ATE PROCEEDINGS, TH E CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING ON SEVERAL DATES AND NONE APPEARED ON THE SPECIFIED DATES . HOWEVER, THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTERS REQUESTING FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR TWO WEEKS, FOUR WEEKS, ETC. ON THE GROUND THAT ADDITIONAL DETAILS HAVE TO BE COLLECTED. TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND SIMPLY AVOIDED FOR APPEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AGAINST ALL NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.). I.T.A. NO . 1391 /M/ 15 3 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND SUBMITTED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE BY FILING ALL NECESSARY MATERIAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A) OR APPEARED IN PERSON . THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER ON MERITS AND HE RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BEL OW. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HI S RETURN OF INCOME AND A FTER DUE PROCESS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY MAKING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCE /ADDITIONS. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEA RED ON THE SPECIFIED DATES AND NO WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUPPORTED BY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT V. M ULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.). NOW, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING EX - PARTE ORDER. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVE N TO THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE I.T.A. NO . 1391 /M/ 15 4 ASSESSEE HAS TO BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) I S SET ASIDE AND REMITTED THE MATTER BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE DETAILS AS MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 30 TH SEPTEMBER , 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 30 . 0 9 .201 5 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.