Dr.S.Krishnan, CHENNAI V. ITO, Cuddalore

ITA 455/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6473 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, .. , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , SMC B BENCH, CHENNAI . , ! BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.455/MDS/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) DR. S. KRISHNAN, NO.27, SOUTH STREET, VRIDHACHALAM, CUDDALORE 606 001. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD I (3), CUDDALORE PAN: AABPK7124L ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAROJ KUMAR PARIDA, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUPRIYOPAL, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 12.06.2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.08.2017 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)- PUDUCHERRY DATED 23.12.2016 IN ITA NO.411/CIT(A)-PD Y/2013- 14 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PASSED U/S.250(6 ) R.W.S.144 OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2 ITA NO.455/MDS/2017 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED I N CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- AS UNEXPL AINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT. 2.1 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE SOURCE FOR THE CASH HANDED OVE R TO THE ASSESSEE BY HIS SON WAS THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF S OME PROPERTY. 2.2 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED FROM THE TER M DEPOSITS INVESTED USING THE CASH BELONGING TO HIS SON WAS CR EDITED TO THE SON'S ACCOUNT FOR SERVICING THE LOAN GRANTED TO HIS SON BY THE BANK. 2.3 THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ON MATURITY THE PROCEEDS WERE TRAN SFERRED TO HIS SON'S ACCOUNT. FURTHER THE APPELLANT HAS PROVED THE IDENTITY OF THE SOURCE, CAPACITY OF THE SOURCE TO A DVANCE THE MONEY AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION, HENCE NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR IN THE HAND OF THE APPELLANT. 3. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ELECTRONICALLY ON 30.03.2010, ADMITTING TO TAL INCOME OF RS.2,86,390/-. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTE D FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND FINALLY ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED ON 29.12.2022, WHEREIN THE LD.AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 3 ITA NO.455/MDS/2017 4. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.C IT(A) HAS PASSED AN EX-PARTE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING THE ASSE SSEE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. HE THEREFORE PLEADED T HAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR D E-NOVA CONSIDERATION. 5. THE LD.DR STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AR. HE ARGUED BY STATING THAT THE LD.AO AS WELL AS THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN SEVERAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSE SSEE OF BEING HEARD, HOWEVER NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSES SEE, AR THE TIME OF HEARING, HENCE THE LD.AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) WERE COMPELLED TO PASS EX-PARTE ORDER. THE LD.DR FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS RESORTING TO DELAY TACTICS AND THEREFORE THE MATTER MAY BE HEARD ON MERIT. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULLY PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ON PERUSING THE FILE, IT I S APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO CO-OPERATE BEFORE THE LD .AO AND THE LD.CIT(A) AT THE TIME OF HEARING. IT IS ALSO REVEA LED THAT SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED BY BOTH THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. IT IS ALSO OBVIOUS THA T THE ASSESSEE 4 ITA NO.455/MDS/2017 IS ELUDING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE REVENUE. IN THIS C IRCUMSTANCE, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AR. HOWEVER, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IM OF THE VIEW THAT ON E MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE IN ORDER TO PRES ENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, I HER EBY REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) WITH DIRECTIONS TO OBTAIN A REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD.AO AND THEREAFTER PASS AP PROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND MERIT. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AS INDICATED HEREIN ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON THE 01 ST AUGUST, 2017. SD/- ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# /CHENNAI, $% /DATED 01 ST AUGUST, 2017 JR % '( )( /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. , ( )/CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. (-. / /DR 6. .0 /GF