Aashish D.Mehta, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2318/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9013 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2015
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN
• Assessee Lawyers: B RAMANA KUMAR

Judgement Text

, - , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-A BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NOS.2318 & 2319/MDS/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 & 2005-06 SHRI AASHISH D. MEHTA 3-A CHANDAN BALA APARTMENTS PRITHAPET ROAD EVK SAMPATH ROAD VEPERY, CHENNAI 600 007 VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II(1) CHENNAI [PAN ADWPA 1720 C] ( ! / APPELLANT) ( '# ! /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. RAMANAKUMAR, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 16 - 0 6 - 2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 - 0 6 - 2016 / O R D E R THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAIN ST SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-19, CHENNAI, DATED 26.2.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 -02 AND 2005-06. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN I.T.A.NO . 2318/MDS/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IS ADDITI ON OF ` 1 LAKH TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 3. SHRI B. RAMANAKUMAR, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES O F THE ASSESSEE ON ITA NO.2318 & 2319/15 :- 2 -: 23.2.2005. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 1 LAKH TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A), WITHOUT GIVI NG PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, DISPOSED OF THE APPEA L EX-PARTE. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT A PPRECIATED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WHILE CONFIRMING THE A DDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, T HE CIT(A), IN FACT, DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION WHICH IS B EYOND THE JURISDICTION OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HA VE REAPPRECIATED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND DISPOSE OF THE APP EAL ON MERIT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER THE ASSESSEE APPE ARED BEFORE HIM OR NOT. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSEE I S READY AND WILLING TO PROVIDE ALL THE MATERIALS TOWARDS THE SOURCE OF INV ESTMENT OF ` 1 LAKH IN THE PROPERTY, THEREFORE, AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE G IVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE RELEVANT MATERIALS BEFORE T HE CIT(A). 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI P. RADHAKRISHNAN, LD. DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE WAS POSTED ON VARIOUS DATES BEFORE THE CIT(A). NO ONE APPEARE D BEFORE THE CIT(A) EVEN AFTER SERVICE OF NOTICE. SINCE THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED THE OPPORTUNITY, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. MOREOVER, TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY MATERIAL TOWARDS THE SOURCE FOR MAKING INVESTMENT OF ` ITA NO.2318 & 2319/15 :- 3 -: 1 LAKH. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRME D THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER S IDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADM ITTEDLY, THE CIT(A) HAS POSTED THE APPEAL ON VARIOUS DATES AND EXCEPT O N ONE OCCASION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FAC T WHETHER THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) BEI NG THE SENIOR MOST OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT AND HAVING COTERMINO US POWERS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IS EXPECTED TO DISPO SE OF THE APPEAL ON MERIT AFTER RE-APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL SINCE HE HAS NOT APPEARED BE FORE HIM. MOREOVER, IN A CASUAL MANNER, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE SOURCE FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT OF ` 1 LAKH. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE APPLICATION OF MIND TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THIS TR IBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS POWER TO ENH ANCE THE ASSESSMENT BY ASSESSING THE INCOME OR PART OF THE I NCOME WHICH WAS OMITTED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SUCH AN ONEROUS RESPONSIBILITY WAS NOT DISCHARGED BY THE CIT(A) BY REAPPRECIATING THE ITA NO.2318 & 2319/15 :- 4 -: MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THAT MAY NOT ENABLE THE CIT(A) TO DISMISS THE APPEAL. IN THIS CASE, AS RIGHTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A), IN A CASUAL MANNER CONFI RMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE GROUND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED THE SOURCE FOR MAKING THE INVESTMENT O F ` 1 LAKHS. THERE IS NO REFERENCE ABOUT THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND THE BASIS ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDIT ION. THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) BEING THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND HAVING POWERS COTERMINOUS WITH THAT O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER INCLUDING THE POWER TO ENHANCE THE ASSESSME NT, IS EXPECTED TO DISCUSS THE FACTS OF THE CASE AFTER REAPPRECIATING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. SINCE SUCH AN EXERCISE WAS NOT DONE BY THE CIT(A), THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATT ER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF ` 1 LAKH IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) SHALL RECONSIDER THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REAFTER DECIDE THE SAME IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING A REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.2318 & 2319/15 :- 5 -: 7. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, SHRI B. RAMANAKUMAR, L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VERY FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT NO ISSUE REQUIRES TO BE ADJUDICATED. IN VIEW OF THIS STATEMENT OF THE L D. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I.T.A.NO.2 319/MDS/2015 IS DISMISSED. 8. TO SUMMARIZE, I.T.A.NO.2318/MDS/2015 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS I.T.A.NO.2319/MDS/2015 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JUNE, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ! ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: 23 RD JUNE, 2016 RD %&'' ()'*) / COPY TO: ' 1 . / APPELLANT 4. ' + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),-' . / DR 3. ' +'/! / CIT(A) 6. -0'1 / GF