E.Gowri Mahesh Kumar, CHENNAI V. ACIT, Coimbatore

ITA 1568/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4518 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 17-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 1997-1998
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: V NANDAKUMAR IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 68; 2

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 1568/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98. SHRI. E. GOWRI MAHESH KUMAR, 95B, SRINIVASAPURAM MAIN ROAD, AVINASHI 641 654. [PAN AKEPG 5588G] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, COIMBATORE. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. V. NANDAKUMAR, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 17-05-2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17-05-2017 / O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, COI MBATORE, IN APPEAL NO.156C/2007-08, DATED 31.03.2015 FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 1997-1998. ITA NO. 1568/MDS/2015 :- 2 -: 2. SHRI. S. SRIDHAR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE AND SHRI. V. NANDAKUMAR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE RE VENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATI VE THAT TWO ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). FIRST ONE, FOR AN AMOUNT OF D12,50,000/- WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FRO M M/S. FIRST REALTY THROUGH CHEQUES DRAWN ON UNION BANK OF INDI A, MALLESWARAM. THE SECOND WAS AN ADDITION OF D2,00,000/- REPRESENT ING AN ADVANCE RECEIVED FOR THE SALE OF LAND. IT WAS SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE S BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE CASH CREDITS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITIES WAS NOT BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTIONS. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. AS IT IS NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE IS IN POSSESSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES F OR PROVING THE CLAIM OF CASH CREDITS, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE , I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNIT Y TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ITA NO. 1568/MDS/2015 :- 3 -: ASSESSING OFFICER FOR READJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, THE 17 TH DAY OF MAY , 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( GEORGE MATHAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER !' / CHENNAI #$ / DATED:17TH MAY, 2017 KV $%&& '(&)( / COPY TO: & 1 . / APPELLANT 3. & *&+, / CIT(A) 5. (-.& / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. & * / CIT 6. .0&1 / GF