L.Krishnasamy, CHENNAI V. ITO, Dindigul

ITA 651/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5839 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 16-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S VIJAYAPRABHA
• Assessee Lawyers: LAKSHMI SRIRAM
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , A BENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.651/MDS/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06) SHRI L KRISHNASAMY, NO.74-B/1, THIRUMALAISAMYPURAM, DINDIGUL 624 003. V THE ITO, WARD 1(1), DINDIGUL PAN: AEZPK7344G ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MS. LAKSHMI SRIRAM, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MS. S. VIJAYAPRABHA, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 20.09.2017 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.11.2017 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-1, MADURAI DATED 20.06.2016 IN ITA NO.286/2008-09 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 PASSED U/S.250(6) R.W.S.143 (3) & 147 OF THE ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN HIS A PPEAL, HOWEVER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE CONCISE GRO UNDS ARE REFRAMED HEREIN BELOW FOR ADJUDICATION:- 2 ITA NO.651/MDS/2017 (I) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.5,00,000/- AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURE I NCOME. (II) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ENHANCING THE ADDIT ION BY RS.4,43,095/- UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T. (III) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADD ITION OF RS.1,50,000/- UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUS TRANSPORT , FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ON 13.09. 2005 ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,12,400/- AND AGRICUL TURE INCOME OF RS.1,45,000/. INITIALLY THE RETURN WAS PROCESSED U /S.143(1) OF THE ACT ON 09.12.2006. SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON 10.09.2007 AND FINALLY ASSESSMENT WAS CO MPLETED ON 15.12.2008, WHEREIN THE LD.AO DISALLOWED AGRICULTUR AL INCOME RS.45,000/- AND TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTH ER SOURCE AND FURTHER MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,50,000/- & RS.50, 000/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPE AL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT NEITHER THE AS SESSEE NOR HIS REPRESENTATIVE CO-OPERATED WITH THE LD.CIT(A) IN TH E PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE THE LD.CIT(A) DECIDED TO DI SPOSED OFF THE APPEAL BASED ON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD A ND BY 3 ITA NO.651/MDS/2017 OBTAINING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE LD.AO DATED 09.1 1.2015. THEREAFTER THE LD.CIT(A) ENHANCED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING RS.5,00,000/-, RS.4,43,095/- & RS.1,50,000 /- AS THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AT THE OUTSET THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CI T(A) HAD NOT PROVIDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PRESENT HIS CASE EFFECTIVELY BEFORE THE LD.AO IN THE REMAND PRO CEEDINGS. IT WAS THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITT ED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, THEREBY PROV IDING THE ASSESSEE OF AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE LD.D R STOUTLY OPPOSED TO THE SUBMISSION OF LD.AR AND PRAYED FOR C ONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CAREFULL Y PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IT IS APPARENT THAT THE LD.AR HAD NOT PROMPTLY CO-OPERATE D BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHICH RESULTED IN ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME F ROM RS.5,57,400/- ASSESSED BY THE LD.AO TO RS.16,50,495 /-. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A SMALL TIME BUS OPERATOR WHO HAS INITIALLY ADMITTED INCOME OF RS.1,12,400/-. CON SIDERING THE 4 ITA NO.651/MDS/2017 FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, THOUGH WE DO NO T APPRECIATE THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD.AR THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED PROPER HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD, TAKI NG NOTE OF THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FINANCIA L STATURE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION, THEREBY PROVIDING ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. HOWEVE R, WE ALSO CAUTION THE ASSESSEE TO PROMPTLY CO-OPERATE BEFORE THE REVENUE IN THEIR PROCEEDINGS IN ORDER TO EXPEDITE THEIR ORD ER FAILING WHICH THE LD.REVENUE AUTHORITIES SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO P ASS APPROPRIATE ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH MERIT AND LAW BASED ON THE MATERIALS BEFORE THEM. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ! /CHENNAI, '# /DATED 21 ST NOVEMBER, 2017 RSR # $ %&' & /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 2. /RESPONDENT 3. + ( )/CIT(A) 4. + /CIT 5. &,- . /DR 6. -/0 /GF