N.Karuppusamy, Karur V. ITO Ward 1, Karur

ITA 2400/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6756 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBASHRIJ
• Assessee Lawyers: K RAVI
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI , #$ % , ( SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2400 /CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SHRI N.KARUPPUSAMY , 162/14,SIVASAKTHI NAGAR, THANTHONIMALAI ROAD, KARUR 639 005 . PAN : BEDPK 0030 G V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1,KARUR. (-/ APPELLANT) (./-/ RESPONDENT) - 0 / APPELLANT BY: SHRI K.RAVI,ADVOCATE ./- 0 / RESPONDENT BY : MS. SUBASHRI,JCIT,DR 0 / DATE OF HEARING : 01.07.2019 0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.07.2019 / O R D E R PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A)-1,TIRUCHIRAPPALLI, DATED 20.07.2018. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SPECIFIC GROUNDS ON VALIDITY OF RE-OPENING OF ASSES SMENT U/S.147 OF THE ACT, VAGUENESS IN THE NOTICES U/S.148 AND U/S.143(2 ) OF THE ACT BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HOWEVER, LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICAT ED THE SAID GROUNDS 2 I.T.A. NO.2400/CHNY/2018 AND HAS ONLY ADJUDICATED THE GROUNDS ON MERITS OF T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBM ITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO ADJUDI CATE THE SAID GROUNDS. 3. THE LD.DR IS HEARD WHO HAS RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF TH E LD.CIT(A), IT IS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING THREE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 2. NOTICE ISSUED U/S.148 DATED 17/10/2013 IS VAGU E AS THE LD.ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE IT CLEAR WHETHER IT IS IN RESPECT OF MY INCOME OR THE INCOME OF SOME OTHER ASSESSEE FOR WHOM I AM ASSESSABLE. 3. THE REASONS SUPPLIED BY THE LD.ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S.148 VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 20.01.2014 IS ARBITRARY AND VAGUE AND DOES NOT ESTABLISH THAT HE HAD A VALID RE ASON FOR BELIEVING THAT INCOME HAD ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 4. NOTICE ISSUED U/S.143(2) DATED 20.01.2014 ISSUE D IN CONNECTION WITH RETURN OF INCOME SUBMITTED ON 09.01.2012 IS BA RRED BY LIMITATION AND THEREFORE BAD IN LAW. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A), WE FIND THAT HE HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE SAID GROUNDS AND HAS DECIDED THE AP PEAL ON MERITS. THEREFORE, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION RAISED BY T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. GIVEN THAT THE ADJUDICATION OF THE LEGAL GROUNDS WILL HAVE A BEARING ON THE MATTER, WE ARE SETTING ASIDE THE ORD ER OF THE LD.CIT(A) TO 3 I.T.A. NO.2400/CHNY/2018 DECIDE THE LEGAL GROUNDS SO RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE MERITS OF THE MATTER. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02/07/20 19 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( GEORGE MATHAN ) ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 02 ND JULY, 2019. K S SUNDARAM 0 .%# 9# /COPY TO: 1. -/ APPELLANT 2. ./- / RESPONDENT 3. : () /CIT(A) 4. : /CIT 5. # . /DR 6. /GF.