ITO, CHENNAI V. S.Rajkumar, CHENNAI

ITA 578/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 68840 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N MADHAVAN
• Section: 143(3); 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI (BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ) .. I.T.A. NO.578/MDS/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD IV(4), CHENNAI 34. (APPELLANT) V. SHRI S.RAJKUMAR, NO.22/1,SHANTHI STREET, DR.SEETHAPATHI NAGAR, VELACHERRY, CHENNAI-42. PAN : AAEPR 6294 F (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.MADHAVAN, JCIT D.R RESPONDENT BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 11.11.13 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.11.13 O R D E R PER A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE , AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) DATED 13. 12.2012 IN ITA NO.578/MDS/13 2 ITA NO.126/11-12(A)-VIII PASSED U/S 143(3) READ WI TH SECTIONS 147 AND 250 OF THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THREE GROUNDS IN ITS APP EAL, HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE REVENUE IS AGGRIE VED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) FOR HAVING DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR `. 10,22,500/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS, BAS ED ON FRESH EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT OB TAINING REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. 3. THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING FOR THE FIRST T IME ON 03.07.2013, HOWEVER AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE S LETTER 02.07.2013 THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 04.09.2013. ON 04.09.2013 THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION, HOWEVER BOTH THE PARTIE S WERE INTIMATED OF THE NEXT HEARING ON 11.11.2013, BUT NONE APPEARE D ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THE BENCH PROCEEDS TO HEAR THE CASE EXPARTE, SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS SIMPLE AND NO T COMPLEX. ITA NO.578/MDS/13 3 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 30.09.2009 SIC 30.09.2007 ADMITTING THE TOTAL I NCOME OF `. 1,46,164/-. THE RETURN WAS INITIALLY PROCESSED ON 143(1) OF THE ACT HOWEVER, DUE TO CASSS THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCR UTINY ASSESSMENT AND SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS P ASSED ON 29.12.2011 WHEREIN LD.AO MADE ADDITION OF `. 10,22,500/- FOR THE CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK FOR WHICH NO SATISFACTORY EXPL ANATION COULD BE FURNISHED. ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDIT ION AFTER EXAMINING THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME FOR THE ACCOUNTING YEARS 2002-03 TO 2 005-06. 5. LD.D.R SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT BEFORE THE LD.AO FOR VERIFICATION AND LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT OBTA INING REMAND REPORT HAD ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ERR ONEOUS. HE THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE APPEAL MAY BE REMITTED BA CK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION FOR HIM TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AFTER OBTAINING REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD.AO. LD.A.R ST RONGLY OBJECTED TO ITA NO.578/MDS/13 4 THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.D.R AND SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD VERIFIED THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D JUDICIOUSLY PASSED THE ORDER BY DELETING THE ADDITION. THEREFO RE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE CONFIRMED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFUL LY PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) THAT FRESH EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM BASED ON WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD NOT OBTAINED THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD.AO FOR HIS VERIFICATION. FURTHER THE REVENUE IN ITS WRITTEN S UBMISSION HAS STATED THAT THE LD.AO HAD ISSUED NOTICE DATED 04.12.2008 D URING THE COURSE OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE DETAIL S ONLY ON 29.12.2008 SIC 29.12.2011 I.E. AFTER THE DATE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LD.AO OUGHT TO HAVE BEING PROV IDED WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE CAS E BACK TO THE FILE OF ITA NO.578/MDS/13 5 THE LD.CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO OBTAIN A REMAND RE PORT FROM THE LD.AO AND THEREAFTER PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER LAW A ND MERITS. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH REVENUE IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE ITS PROCEEDINGS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED THE 13 TH NOVEMBER, 2013. K S SUNDARAM. COPY TO: ASSESSEE/AO/CIT (A)/CIT/D.R./GUARD FILE