D.Dinesh Kumar, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 1569/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 156921714 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL S M C BENCH, CHENNAI ... , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1569/MDS/2015 ' #$' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI D. DINESH KUMAR, NO.28 & 29, BRINDAVAN NAGAR 4 TH CROSS, VALASARAVAKKAM, CHENNAI - 600 087. PAN : AKNPD 0960 D V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD 4(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (&'/ APPELLANT) (()&'/ RESPONDENT) &' * + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE ()&' * + / RESPONDENT BY : DR. B. NISCHAL, JCIT , # * -. / DATE OF HEARING : 04.09.2015 /0$ * -. / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.09.2015 / O R D E R THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 4(I/C), CHEN NAI DATED 30.03.2015, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2 I.T.A. NO.1569/MDS/15 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS INCOME-TAX RETURN DISCLOSING INCOME FROM SALARY, INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SO URCES AND CLAIMED DEDUCTIONS UNDER CHAPTER VI-A OF THE INCOME -TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SC RUTINY BY CASS AND NOTICES WERE ISSUED ALONG WITH A QUESTIONNAIRE. TH E ASSESSEE FILED EXPLANATIONS AND CLARIFIED THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE IN RESPECT OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY AND ALSO CASH DEPOS IT OF ` 21,30,300/- IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DISALLOWED CASH DEPOSITS TO THE EXTENT OF ` 5 LAKHS ONLY TREATING AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ALSO MADE OTHER ADDITIONS TOTAL AGGREGATING TO ` 6,80,105/- AND ASSESSED INCOME AT ` 9,74,150/- AND RAISED THE DEMAND. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), R AISING VARIOUS GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND ALSO CONTENDED THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT GRANTED WHICH IS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND BENEFIT OF FURTHER CLARIFICATIONS WAS NOT PROVIDED. WHEN T HE CASE WAS 3 I.T.A. NO.1569/MDS/15 POSTED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) ON VARIOUS DATES, TH E ASSESSEE NEITHER SOUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT NOR FILED ANY EXPLANA TION AND NOR SUBMITTED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE. CONSIDERING THE INFORMATION FROM THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS INCLUDING THAT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT AND APPLIED THE RATIO IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) LTD. (38 ITD 320) (DEL.) AND ADJUDICATED ON MERITS EX PARTE . 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN AL, RAISING SIMILAR GROUNDS AND ALSO ALLEGING THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER JUSTIFICATION IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL BY THE CIT(A PPEALS). 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUB MITTED THAT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN SPITE OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING REQUIRED INFORMATION I N RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND REQUEST ED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SERIOUS IN PURS UING HIS CASE 4 I.T.A. NO.1569/MDS/15 BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A PPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY DISMISSED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. HENCE, THE TRIBUN AL MAY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS). 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSING T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT CIT(APPEALS), BEING THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, EMPOWERED TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSMENT, HAS TO RE-APPRECIATE THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. THEREFORE, MEREL Y BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THAT CANNOT BE A REASON TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS SET ASI DE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(APPEA LS). THE CIT(APPEALS) SHALL DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT B Y A SPEAKING ORDER, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO APPEA R BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), HE MAY DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL BY A SPE AKING ORDER AFTER RE-APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5 I.T.A. NO.1569/MDS/15 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ... ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 2 /DATED, THE 11 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. KRI. * (-34 54$- /COPY TO: 1. &' /APPELLANT 2. ()&' /RESPONDENT 3. , 6- () /CIT(A)-4, CHENNAI 4. , 6- /CIT-5, CHENNAI 5. 4#7 (- /DR 6. 8' 9 /GF.