SHRI M. JEYAPRAKASH, CHENNAI V. ITO, NCW - 8 (1), CHENNAI

ITA 2478/CHNY/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9428 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A SUNDARARAJAN
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Revised return; Set aside
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , ! ' # , % #& BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.2476, 2477, 2478, 2479 & 2480/CHNY/2019 ) *) / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 TO 2010-11 SHRI M. JEYAPRAKASH, NO.15/78, SBI COLONY, 3 RD STREET, SALIGRAMAM, CHENNAI - 600 093. PAN : AECPJ 2867 E V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD III(3), NOW, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 8(1), CHENNAI - 600 034. (,-/ APPELLANT) (./,-/ RESPONDENT) ,- 0 1 / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE ./,- 0 1 / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A. SUNDARARAJAN, ADDL. CIT 2 0 3% / DATE OF HEARING : 03.12.2019 45* 0 3% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.01.2020 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : ALL THE FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) -9, CHENNAI, DATED 19.06.2019 AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 AND 2010-1 1. THEREFORE, WE HEARD ALL THE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DI SPOSING THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 I.T.A. NOS.2476 TO 2480/CHNY/19 2. SHRI G. BASKAR, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS ADD ITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT'). ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, DU RING THE PENDENCY OF THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), A REMAND REP ORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT, THE ASSES SING OFFICER SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT ON 13.02.2017. THE CIT (APPEALS), AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT, FOUND THAT THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REGARD TO EXPENSES CLAIM ED WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE REMAND REPORT. THEREFORE, ACCORDIN G TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CIT(APPEALS) CALLED FOR REPORT FROM TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHETHER HE IS SATISFIED OR NOT WITH REFEREN CE TO REVISED STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS FILED IN THE REVISED RETURN O F INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FILED ANY RE PORT SO FAR. MOREOVER, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE REVISED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET INCORPORATING ALL RECEIPT S AND PAYMENTS INCLUDING THE UNDISCLOSED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOU NT WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION EITHER BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER OR BY THE CIT(APPEALS). ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE CI T(APPEALS) TREATED THE REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER O N 13.02.2017 AS 3 I.T.A. NOS.2476 TO 2480/CHNY/19 INTERIM REPORT AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS A ND SIMPLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI A. SUNDARARAJAN, THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SUBMITTED THAT HAVING NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPORT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE CIT(APPEA LS) ON 13.02.2017, THE CIT(APPEALS) CALLED FOR ANOTHER REP ORT WITH THE INSTRUCTION TO EXPRESS WHETHER THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IS SATISFIED OR NOT SATISFIED WITH REFERENCE TO REVISED STATEMENT O F ACCOUNTS FILED WITH THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME. THIS REPORT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. D.R. CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FILED THE REPORT BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R FOR RECONSIDERATION. 4. HAVING HEARD THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. D.R., WE PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE REPORT CALLED FOR BY THE CIT(APPEAL S) ON 27.04.2017 WAS NOT FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REVISE D PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, BALANCE SHEET INCORPORATING THE RECEIPTS A ND PAYMENTS, INCLUDING THE UNDISCLOSED DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOU NT, NEED TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE 4 I.T.A. NOS.2476 TO 2480/CHNY/19 NECESSARY REPORT AS CALLED FOR BY THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RECONSIDERED AS SUGGESTED BY THE LD. D.R. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE MAT ERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISS UE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST JANUARY, 2020 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ! ' # ) ( . . . ) (INTURI RAMA RAO) (N.R.S. GANESAN) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 7 /DATED, THE 1 ST JANUARY, 2020. KRI. 5 I.T.A. NOS.2476 TO 2480/CHNY/19 0 .389 :9*3 /COPY TO: 1. ,- /APPELLANT 2. ./,- /RESPONDENT 3. 2 ;3 () /CIT(A)-9, CHENNAI 4. PRINCIPAL CIT- 4, CHENNAI 5. 9< .3 /DR 6. =) > /GF.