Udhan Kumar Chordia, CHENNAI V. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 6, CHENNAI

ITA 2343/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5055 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 2343/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-2014. SHRI. UDHAN KUMAR CHORDIA, NO.342, MINT STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI 600 079. [PAN AAFPC 9021N] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NON CORPORATE CIRCLE 6, CHENNAI. ( '# / APPELLANT) ( $%'# /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI.D. ANAND, ADVOCATE. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI.B. SAGADEVAN, IRS, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 04-1-2018 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08-1-2018 & / O R D E R ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL ASSAILS AN ORDER DATED 25. 07.2017 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-5, CHENNAI FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSE E HAD SHOWN A SUM OF RS.30,57,332/- UNDER THE HEAD INCO ME FROM OTHER ITA NO.2343/MDS/2017. :- 2 -: SOURCES INCLUDING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.15,73,466/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE SUO MOTU, U/S.14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AGA INST THE ABOVE SUM OF B15,73,466/-, ASSESSEE HAD SET OFF INTEREST EXPE NDITURE AND DECLARED NIL INCOME. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORI SED REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THE INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED FOR SET-O FF WAS INCURRED FOR EARNING THE INCOME SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SO URCES. AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE A FURTHER DISAL LOWANCE OF RS.15,73,466/- WAS MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND THIS RESULTED IN A DOUBLE WHAMMY. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) DID NOT GIVE THE ASSESSEE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT I TS CASE AND HAD DISMISSED ITS APPEAL WITHOUT HEARING IT. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SHOW WHAT WAS THE INTEREST PAID BY IT AND HOW IT WAS RELATED TO THE INCOME SHOWN BY IT UNDER THE HEA D INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, ASSESSE E WAS GIVEN THREE CHANCES BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR PRESENTING ITS CASE, BUT DID NOT CARE TO APPEAR. AS PER LD. D EPARTMENTAL ITA NO.2343/MDS/2017. :- 3 -: REPRESENTATIVE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WHAT I FIND IS THE APPEAL WAS POSTED FOR HEARING BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) THREE TIMES VIZ ON 11.05.2017, 07.06.2017 AND 11.07.2017. IN EACH SUCH INSTANCE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN ADJOURNMENT LETTER. THIS IS CLEARLY MENTIONED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) IN HIS ORDER. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HA D PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE MATTER BASED ON MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON R ECORD SINCE ACCORDING TO HIM ASSESSEE WAS GUILTY OF LACHES. N OW THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ME IS THAT PROPER OPPORTUNI TY WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CASE. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS UNDERTAKE N TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IF GIV EN ONE MORE CHANCE AND EXPLAIN THE CASE BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ASSESSEE CAN BE GIVEN ONE MORE CHANCE FOR ENTERING APPEARANCE BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) AND EXPLAINING ITS CASE. I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF ITA NO.2343/MDS/2017. :- 4 -: INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND REMIT THE APPEAL BACK TO T HE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR CONSIDERAT ION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 8TH DAY OF JANUAR Y, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: 8TH JANUARY, 2018 KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF