M.A.Kamakshi, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 3495/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6486 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, A/SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A/SMC BENCH, CHENNAI . , BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ITA NO.3491 TO 3495/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 TO 2008-09) MS.M.A.KAMAKSHI, OLD NO.191, NEW NO.220, PURASAWALKAM HIGH ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI-600 010. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE CIRCLE-10, CHENNAI. PAN: AIVPK 0995 P ( / APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : MR. A.S.SRIRAMAN, ADV. / RESPONDENT BY : MR . B.SAGADEVAN, JCIT #$ / DATE OF HEARING : 02.08 .201 7 #$ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02 . 0 8 .201 7 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THESE FIVE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGG RIEVED BY THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A )-12, CHENNAI, ITA NOS.3491 TO 3495/MDS/2016 : - 2 - : ALL DATED 29.12.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 -04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING IDENTICAL GROUNDS IN ALL HER APPEALS. 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) 12, CHENNAI DATED 29.12.2015 IN L.T.A.NO.41/CIT(A)-12/2003-04 F OR THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS , AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESS MENT OF THE DIFFERENTIAL RENTAL QUANTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE TOTAL INCOME WITHOUT ASSIGNI NG PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RENTAL INCOME QUANTIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON INSPEC TORS REPORT WAS WRONG, ERRONEOUS, UNJUSTIFIED, INCORRECT AND NOT SU STAINABLE IN LAW, THEREBY VITIATING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE DIFFERENTIA L, AMOUNT QUANTIFIED. 4. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NON CONSIDERATION OF GROUND NO.4 FORMING PART OF THE STATUTORY FORM NO.3 5 WOULD VITIATE THE DECISION RENDERED WITH A VIEW TO CONFIRM THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT EVEN AFTER REPRODUCING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED AT VARIOUS STAGES OF THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN RELATION THER ETO WAS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW ITA NOS.3491 TO 3495/MDS/2016 : - 3 - : 6. THE CIT (APPEALS) WENT WRONG IN RECORDING THE FI NDINGS IN THIS REGARD IN PAGE NOS. 10 & 11 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION. 7. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SUSTENANCE OF REASSESSMENT WAS NOT CORRECT AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPR ECIATED THAT THE ORDER OF RE-ASSESSMENT VAS PASSED OUT OF TIME, INVA LID, PASSED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND NOT SUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 8. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THER E WAS NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BEFORE PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED OR DER AND ANY ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES NATURAL JUSTI CE WOULD BE NULLITY IN LAW. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE ME T HAT THE ADDITIONS FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE WITH RESPECT TO U NDISCLOSED RENTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE THE BASIS IN WHICH HE HAD ARRIVED AT THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND TH E REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR WHILE MAKING SUCH ADDITIONS. FURTHER IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE RENTAL VALUE WAS EVENLY ADOPTED BY THE LD.A.O W ITH RESPECT TO THE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ERRON EOUS. LD.A.R FURTHER ARGUED STATING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT GIVE FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WITH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. A.R PLEADED THAT ITA NOS.3491 TO 3495/MDS/2016 : - 4 - : THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT BY CURING ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED DEFECTS. 4. THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE ME STATING THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) HAD PRO VIDED THE ASSESSEE WITH SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CO-OPERATED WITH THE REVENUE IN THEIR PROCEEDIN GS WHICH MIGHT HAVE RESULTED IN THE DEFICIENCIES CITED BY THE LD. AR. HE THEREFORE REQUESTED TO CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE PARTICULARS REQUIRED FOR THE ASSESSME NT BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DUE TO WHICH THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER WAS FORCED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAI LABLE ON RECORD. THIS ELUDING ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HER LD. A R IS NOT APPRECIABLE. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I HEREBY REMIT THE ITA NOS.3491 TO 3495/MDS/2016 : - 5 - : ENTIRE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE-NOVO CONSIDERATION SO THAT THE ASSESSMENTS C AN BE REFRAMED IN A FAIR MANNER. I ALSO CAUTION THE ASSESSEE AND T HE LD. A.R TO PROMPTLY APPEAR BEFORE THE REVENUE AND FURNISH ALL THE INFORMATION REQUIRED FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROMPTLY IN ORDER TO EX PEDITE THEIR ORDERS FAILING WHICH THE REVENUE IS AT LIBERTY TO P ASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT. 6. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 ND AUGUST,2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) ( A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED: 02 ND AUGUST , 2017. K S SUNDARAM. ITA NOS.3491 TO 3495/MDS/2016 : - 6 - : '((#)*(+*# / COPY TO: ( 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ( ,#(() / CIT(A) 5. */0(#1 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ( ,# / CIT 6. 02(3 / GF