A.Thangaraj, Kumbakonam V. ITO, Kumbakonam

ITA 2771/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86327 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKAR
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI . , . ' #$ , % & BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO.2861/MDS/2014 % $ ($ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), KUMBAKONAM 612 001. V. SHRI A. THANGARAJ, NO.87/44, PACHYAPPA STREET, KUMBAKONAM 612 001. PAN : ACMPT 6648 R (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NO.2771/MDS/2014 % $ ($ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI A. THANGARAJ, NO.87/44, PACHYAPPA STREET, KUMBAKONAM 612 001. V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I(1), KUMBAKONAM 612 001. (*+/ APPELLANT) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI N. MADHAVAN, JCIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T. BANUSEKAR, CA ' . / / DATE OF HEARING : 25.02.2015 0( . / / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05.03.2015 / O R D E R PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE IN CROSS APPEALS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), TIRUCHIRAPALLI, DATED 27.08.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2 I.T.A. NO. 2861/MDS/2014 I.T.A. NO. 2771/MDS/2014 2. FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DEALING WITH THE BUSINESS OF PUFFED RICE. THE RETURN OF INCOME FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED/ 143(1) OF THE INC OME-TAX ACT, 1961 AND AFTER DUE PROCESS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMP LETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. HAS FOUND CERTAIN CASH CREDIT S IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNTS. WHEN THE A.O. ASKED THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLANATION, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN BEFORE THE A.O. THEREFORE THE A.O. HAS INVOKED PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 68 OF THE ACT AND MADE ADDITIONS ACCORDINGLY. 3. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL THE DETAILS A ND GAVE EXPLANATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS). THE LD. C IT(APPEALS), AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSE SSEE, DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IN RESPECT OF CASH CREDIT S AND SUSTAINED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF THE UNACCOUNTED TURNOVER . 4. ON BEING AGGRIEVED, BOTH REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. D.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE A.O. AND ONLY FILED BEFORE T HE LD. 3 I.T.A. NO. 2861/MDS/2014 I.T.A. NO. 2771/MDS/2014 CIT(APPEALS). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE ISSUES HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE A.O. TO DECIDE AFRESH. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE FAIRLY ACCEPTED THAT THE ISSUES MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO TH E A.O. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE RECORDS AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. BY CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT T HE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) HAS TO BE SET ASIDE. ACCOR DINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO DECIDE THE ISSUES DE NOVO AFTER GIVING REASONABLE O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 5 TH OF MARCH, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( . ' #$ ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (V. DURGA RAO) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER % /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, = /DATED, THE 5 TH MARCH, 2015. KRI. 4 I.T.A. NO. 2861/MDS/2014 I.T.A. NO. 2771/MDS/2014 > . ,%/?@ A@(/ /COPY TO: 1. *+ /APPELLANT 2. ,-*+ /RESPONDENT 3. ' B/ () /CIT(A), THIRUCHIRAPPALLI 4. ' B/ /CIT-II, TRICHY 5. @ D# ,%/% /DR 6. #$ E /GF.