Mr.Tirupathi Kumar, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2166/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 216621714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 68; 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . , . . ! , ' # [BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AND SHRI S. S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER] ./ I.T.A.NO.2166/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SHRI TIRUPATHI KUMAR NO.36, WALLAJAH ROAD CHENNAI 600 002 VS. THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX COMPANY CIRCLE IV(4) CHENNAI [PAN AAKPK 1249 F] ( $% / APPELLANT) ( &'$% /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.S.SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB, ADDL. CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 11-02-2014 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-02-2014 ( / O R D E R PER S.S.GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME- TAX(APPEALS)-II CHENNAI, DATED 24.9.2013, PASSED IN APPEAL NO.95/10- I.T.A.NO. 2166/13 :- 2 -: 11, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOM E-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY A RGUES THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN MAKIN G THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS EX-PARTE WITHOUT HEARING HIM EITHER DURI NG THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT OR IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HE SUBMITS THAT HAD THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT(A) GIVEN HIM THE OPPOR TUNITY TO REPRESENT AGAINST THE ADDITIONS, HE WOULD HAVE PROVED THAT TH ERE EXISTED NO GROUNDS FOR MAKING THE SAME. QUA NON-APPEARANCE BE FORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEES PLEA IS THAT SINCE HIS CASE HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM CHENNAI TO COIMBATORE, HE COULD NOT APPEAR THE RE DUE TO LACK OF NECESSARY COMMUNICATION. 3. THE REVENUE DRAWS SUPPORT FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND PRAYS FOR CONFIRMATION THEREOF. 4. THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, IS THE MANAGING D IRECTOR OF NEPC GROUP OF COMPANIES. ON 1.8.2005, HE HAD FIL ED HIS RETURN DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 4,27,872/- WHICH WAS SUMMARILY PROCESSED. I.T.A.NO. 2166/13 :- 3 -: 5. IN THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT FOR DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE QUA HIS BANK DEPOSITS OF ` 2.10 LAKHS IN CANARA BANK, BROADWAY BRANCH. A PERUSAL OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER DATED 13.12.2007 REVEALS THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTER GRANTING REPEA TED OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESORTED TO PROCEEDINGS U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND DETERMINED ASSESSEES INCOME AT ` 6,45,000/- BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION SITTING FEES RECEIVED FROM NEPC OF ` 60,000/-, INCOME FROM LEASE RENTALS OF ` 3,75,000/- AND UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNT U/S 68 AMOUNTING TO ` 2,10,000/-. 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL. THOUGH THE APPEAL HAD BEEN FILED IN CHENNAI ON 16.1.2008, THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO COIMBATORE ON 21.7.2010. IN PROCEED INGS THEREIN, THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE BEEN CONFIRM ED BY THE CIT(A) IN ABSENTIA THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. THEREFORE , THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE CAS E FILE. AS STATED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER HAD FRAMED BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT DUE TO LACK OF CO OPERATION ON ASSESSEES PART. EVEN IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS, THE ASSESSEE I.T.A.NO. 2166/13 :- 4 -: COULD NOT APPEAR. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THA T THE CASE HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED FROM CHENNAI TO COIMBATORE, THE ASSES SEES ARGUMENT THAT HE COULD NOT APPEAR IN LOWER APPELLATE PROCEED INGS DUE TO LACK OF NECESSARY COMMUNICATION IS TREATED AS A JUSTIFIABLE GROUND. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE THAT INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE MET IN CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFRAMES THE ASSE SSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 8. THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING ON TUESDAY, THE 11 OF FEBRUARY, 2014, AT CHENNAI SD/- SD/- (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (S. S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 11 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 RD COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)/CIT/DR