J.Dinakaran, CHENNAI V. ACIT Central Circle 3(2), CHENNAI

ITA 2843/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6025 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BHARATH
• Assessee Lawyers: PRANAY J SHAH ACA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . !, # !$ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS.2841, 2842, 2843, 2844, 2845, 2846 & 2847/CHNY/2018 & '& / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 TO 2015-16 SHRI J. DINAKARAN, OLD NO.7, NEW NO.21, THIRUNAVUKARASU STREET, PERAMBUR, CHENNAI - 600 011. PAN : AIGPD 7898 D V. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(2), CHENNAI - 600 034. ()*/ APPELLANT) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT) ./ ITA NOS.3100, 3101, 3102, 3103, 3104 & 3105/CHNY/20 18 & '& / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-1 4, 2014-15 & 2015-16 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(4), CHENNAI - 600 034. V. SHRI J. DINAKARAN, OLD NO.7, NEW NO.21, THIRUNAVUKARASU STREET, PERAMBUR, CHENNAI - 600 011. ()*/ APPELLANT) (+,)*/ RESPONDENT) &-. / 0 /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRANAY J. SHAH, ACA / 0 /REVENUE BY : SHRI S. BHARATH, CIT 1 / .# / DATE OF HEARING : 24.07.2019 23' / .# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.08.2019 2 I.T.A. NOS.2841 TO 2847/CHNY/18 I.T.A. NOS.3100 TO 3105/CHNY/18 / O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER : BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE HAVE FILED THE APPEALS AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) 19, CHENNAI. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 TO 2015-16, THE REVENU E HAS FILED APPEALS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10, 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16. SINCE COMMON ISSUE A RISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THESE APPEALS, WE HEARD THESE APPEALS TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THERE WAS A DELAY OF 8 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL S BY THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE HAS FILED PETITIONS FOR CONDO NATION OF DELAY. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE A ND THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THER E WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE STIPULA TED TIME. THEREFORE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEA LS. 3. WE HEARD SHRI PRANAY J. SHAH, THE LD. REPRESENTA TIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI S. BHARATH, THE LD. D.R. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE BENCH BY THE LD. D.R. 3 I.T.A. NOS.2841 TO 2847/CHNY/18 I.T.A. NOS.3100 TO 3105/CHNY/18 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL MATERIAL BEF ORE THE CIT(APPEALS) DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEED ING. THE CIT(APPEALS) WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER ENTERTAINED THE SAME. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. D.R., THERE WAS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. THIS FACT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. REPRESENT ATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IN THE ASSESSEES APPE ALS SOME OF THE MATERIALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT CONSID ERED BY BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(APPEALS). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL SITUATION, BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. D.R. PRAYED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RECONSIDERATION. 5. HAVING HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE AND THE LD. D.R., THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OP INION THAT AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSES SEE AND THE LD. D.R., THERE IS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962 IN ENTERTAINING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE CIT(APPEALS). WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF RU LE 46A. WHENEVER ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE CIT(APPEALS) TO GIVE AN 4 I.T.A. NOS.2841 TO 2847/CHNY/18 I.T.A. NOS.3100 TO 3105/CHNY/18 OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONTROVERT THE CONTENT OF THE ADDITIONAL MATERIAL. IN THIS CASE, NO SUCH OPPORTU NITY WAS ADMITTEDLY GIVEN BY THE CIT(APPEALS) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A CLEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCO ME-TAX RULES, 1962. MOREOVER, THE MATERIAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(APPEALS). IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTUAL SITUATI ON, AS RIGHTLY PRAYED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE A ND THE LD. D.R., THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE RE-EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE IN THEIR RESPECTIVE AP PEALS ARE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL RE-EXAMINE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND ALSO ON THE BASIS OF THE MA TERIAL THAT MAY BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF PROCE EDING AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW, AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5 I.T.A. NOS.2841 TO 2847/CHNY/18 I.T.A. NOS.3100 TO 3105/CHNY/18 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 1 ST AUGUST, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (. !) ( . . . ) (S. JAYARAMAN) (N.R.S. GANESAN) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 5 /DATED, THE 1 ST AUGUST, 2019. KRI. / +.67 87'. /COPY TO: 1. &-. /ASSESSEE 2. ASSESSING OFFICER 3. 1 9. () /CIT(A)-19, CHENNAI-34 4. PRINCIPAL CIT, CENTRAL-1, CHENNAI 5. 7: +. /DR 6. ;& < /GF.