ITO, CHENNAI V. SR..Narasimhan, CHENNAI

ITA 686/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9187 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHIVA SRINIVAS
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , & BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.686/MDS/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-15(3), WANAPARTHY BLOCK, 2 ND FLOOR, CHENNAI-600 034. VS MR. S.R.NARASIMHAN, 53, NEW NO.19, JOURNALIST COLONY, CHENNAI-600 041. ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. SHIVA SRINIVAS, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : NONE /DATE OF HEARING : 30 TH MAY, 2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6 TH JUNE, 2016 / O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM:- THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS)- 15, CHENNAI DATED 06.01.2016 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S.250(6) OF THE ACT . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS IN ITS AP PEAL, HOWEVER, THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IS AS FOLLOWS:- THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DIRECTING THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 35,40,000/-,BEING CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT, BASED ON FRESH EVIDENCE, WITHOUT 2 ITA NO.686/MDS/2016 PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHIC H IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD DIRECTED THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 35,40,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BA NK ACCOUNT BASED ON FRESH EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF RULES 46A OF TH E I.T. RULES AND THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE MATTER MAY B E REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION. 4. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT A PPEAR BEFORE THE BENCH AT THE TIME OF HEARING. HOWEVER, O N PERUSING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED FRESH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LEA RNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUCH AS DETAIL S OF BANK WITHDRAWALS / DEPOSITS ETC. THE LEARNED COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WITHOUT OBTAINING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IN ORDER TO PROV IDE HIM 3 ITA NO.686/MDS/2016 WITH AN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE DOCUMENTS IN ACCO RDANCE WITH RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 HAS PRO CEEDED TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THIS IS GROSSL Y IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE HEREBY REMIT BACK THE APPEA L TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSID ERATION WITH A DIRECTION TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO ANY OTHER MATERIALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 6 TH JUNE, 2016 SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) ( A.M OHAN ALANKAMONY ) # % / JUDICIAL MEMBER % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # /CHENNAI, ( /DATED 6 TH JUNE, 2016 SOMU *+ ,+ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. - () /CIT(A) 4. - /CIT 5. + 1 /DR 6. /GF