S. Stanley Rajan, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 2801/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7745 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 27-09-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M KARUNAKARAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3); 69; 10

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO. 2801 /MDS/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 09 - 1 0 SHRI S. STANLEY RAJAN, NO. 12, CHITLAPAKKAM MAIN ROAD, SELAIYUR, CHENNAI 600 073. [PAN: BBGPS8820J ] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , NON CORPORATE WARD 9(3 ) / BUSIN ESS WARD V(3), C HENNAI 34 . ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. KARUNAKARAN , ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : S HRI SUPRIYO PAL , J CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 27 . 12 .201 6 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT : 29 . 12 .201 6 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER : TH I S APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 10 , C HENNAI DAT ED 26 .0 2 .2016 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 1 0 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MANY GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL, BUT THE MAIN ISSUE CHALLENGED IS WITH REGARD TO EX - PARTE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMING PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [ ACT IN SHORT] . I.T.A. NO . 2801 / M/ 1 6 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A N INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.02.2010 ADMITTING A TOTAL INCOME OF .3,00,370/ - . THE 143(3) ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT .53,94,657/ - AFTER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. AGAINST THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. SUBSEQUENT APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS HON BLE HIGH COURT WERE DISMISSED. AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF QUANTUM ADDITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PENALTY PROCEED INGS AND LEVIED PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). SINCE THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FROM ASSESSEE S SIDE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) C ONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON MERITS. 2. AGAINST THE EX - PARTE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT ONE MORE OPPOR TUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). I.T.A. NO . 2801 / M/ 1 6 3 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES AND SINCE THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDE R UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 04.01.2016 AND 22.02.2016 TO PRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE HIM. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR FILED ANY SUBMISSIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E HAS PLEADED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). UNDER THE ABOVE CIRCUMSTANCES, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SINCE WE HAVE REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A), THE OTHER GROUNDS I.T.A. NO . 2801 / M/ 1 6 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADJUDICATED AT THIS JUNCTURE. 5 . IN THE RESULT, TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 29 TH DECEMBER , 201 6 AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 29 . 12 .201 6 VM/ - / COPY TO: 1. / APPELLANT , 2. / RESPONDENT , 3. ( ) / CIT(A) , 4. / CIT , 5. / DR & 6. / GF.