SMT. C JAYALAKSHMI, CHENNAI V. ITO BUSINESS WARD XIII(2), CHENNAI

ITA 540/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8840 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D ANAND

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . , [BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] ./I.T.A. NO.540/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 SMT.C.JAYALAKSHMI 34/16, THIRUMOOLAR COLONY, VIVEKANANDA STREET, ANNA NAGAR, CHENNAI-40. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BUSINESS WARD-XIII(2), CHENNAI-600 034. (PAN:ADBPJ2576N ) ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI D.ANAND, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V.M.MAHIDAR, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 18.12 . 2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 .12 . 201 8 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: ASSESSEE THROUGH THIS APPEAL, WHICH IS DIRECTED A GAINST AN ORDER DATED 22.12.2017 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS)-7, CHENNAI, RAISES A GRIEVANCE THAT SHE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIEN T AND EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BEFORE DISPOSING OF HER APPEAL. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT HAD MADE ADDITION OF 7,7 4,950/- FOR FAILURE OF THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO CONSIDERATION PAID BY HER FOR PURCHASING A FLAT AT 237/6, SECOND FLOOR, ROHINI FLATS, ANNA NAGAR ITA NO. 540/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: WEST EXTENSION, CHENNAI. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO MADE ADDITION OF 10,30,000/- FOR CONSIDERATION RECEIVED ON SALE OF PROPERTY. THOUGH IN HER APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A), ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE ABO VE ADDITIONS, IT SEEMS, NOBODY ENTERED APPEARANCE FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). LEARN ED CIT(A) NOTED THAT NOTICES SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WERE RETURNED UNSERVED . NOW, AN UNDERTAKING HAS BEEN ORALLY MADE BY LEARNED AR BEFO RE US, THAT IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, SHE WOU LD DEFINITELY ENTER APPEARANCE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND PRESENT HE R CASE. CONSIDERING THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF TH E OPINION THAT MATTER CAN GO BACK TO THE LEARNED CIT(A) FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND REMIT THE APPEAL BACK TO HIM FOR CONSIDERING THE MATTER AFRESH, IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW, AFTER GIVING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRE SENT HER CASE. 3. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATI STICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 19 TH OF DECEMBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . . . ) ( N.R.S. GANESAN ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI / DATED:- 19 TH DECEMBER, 2018. SOMU ITA NO. 540/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ( ) / CIT(A) 5. / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. / CIT 6. / GF