, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHE NNAI . . . , , ! ' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /. I.T.A. NO. 1407/CHNY/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 M/S. P. M. P. STEELS LTD., 237, MINT STREET, CHENNAI 600 003. [PAN: AACCP 4831B] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, CORPORATE WARD -5(2), CHENNAI. ( / APPELLANT) ( #$%& /RESPONDENT ) %& ' ( / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE #$%& ' ( / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT * '+! /DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2019 ,-. '+! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.02.2020 / O R D E R PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 3, CHENNAI IN ITA NO. 128/2014-15/CIT(A)-3 DATED 31.03.2017 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010-11. :-2-: ITA NO.1407/CHNY/2017 2. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI. DURAISAMY, DURING WHICH THE REVENUE DETECTED THAT DURAISAMY AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS HAD PURCHASED TWO PROPERTIES FRO M THE ASSESSEE, THE P.M.P STEELS LTD., AND ITS DIRECTOR SMT. G. SAROJA THROUGH REGISTERED SALE DEED DATED 14.12.2009 AND 15.12.2009 FOR SALE CONSI DERATION OF RS. 27,58,001/- AND RS. 18,63,183/-, RESPECTIVELY. HOW EVER, THE SEARCH ACTION REVEALED THAT THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION AT RS. 3 .2 CRORES, FOR BOTH THE PROPERTIES, WAS RECEIVED BUT THE SAME WAS NOT DISCL OSED IN THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. I N VIEW OF THOSE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U /S. 147 AND RE- ASSESSED THE ADDITIONAL SALE CONSIDERATION. AGGRIE VED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DISMIS SED THE APPEAL. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED TH IS APPEAL. 3. WHEN THE LD. AR PRESENTED THE CASE, THE BENCH ASK ED HIM WHAT HAPPENED TO THE CASES OF SHRI DURAISAMY AND MRS. G. SAROJA. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT BOTH CASES ARE PENDING BEFORE ANOTHE R APPELLATE AUTHORITY. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) SO THAT ALL THE CASES CAN BE HEA RD BY ONE OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES IN ORDER TO SETTLE THE ISSUE. 4. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS NOTICED TH AT WHEN TWO OR MORE PROCEEDINGS AROSE OUT OF THE CONNECTED ISSUE, THE T RIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT ONLY ONE AUTHORITY HAS TO D ISPOSE THE CONNECTED :-3-: ITA NO.1407/CHNY/2017 APPEALS IN ORDER TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDIN GS AND CONFLICTING JUDICIAL OPINION. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE IS CLAIMED TO H AVE RECEIVED CONSIDERATION OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS DECLARED IN TH E SALE DEED. SINCE THE PURCHASERS ALSO COVERED AND THEIR ASSESSMENTS ARE C HALLENGED AND THOSE APPEALS ARE PENDING BEFORE ANOTHER APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY, IN ALL FAIRNESS, THIS APPEAL ALSO HAS TO BE HEARD BY THE SAME APPELLATE A UTHORITY. NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE STEPS SHALL BE TAKEN TO POST THE CON NECTED APPEALS BEFORE THE SAME CIT(A), WHO IS HANDLING THE APPEALS FILED BY THE CONNECTED PURCHASERS. IN THE INTERESTS OF CO-ORDINATION AND THE JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT FIT TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALL THE APPEALS CONNECTED MAY BE HEARD AND DISPOSED BY THE SAME CIT (A) TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS AND CONFLICTING JUDICIA L OPINION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2020 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( ! ) (S. JAYARAMAN) ' /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, / /DATED: 21 ST FEBRUARY, 2020 JPV '#+0121.+ /COPY TO: 1. %&/ APPELLANT 2. #$%& /RESPONDENT 3. * 3+ ) (/CIT(A) 4. * 3+ /CIT 5. 14#+ /DR 6. 567 /GF