Ishita Shampa Datta, CHENNAI V. ITO N C Ward 16(3), CHENNAI

ITA 863/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2712 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: GOPICHANDC A
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, SMC , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A SMC BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.863/CHNY/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 SMT ISHITA SHAMPA DATTA , G4,GRAHALAKSHMI APARTMENT, 640,T.H.ROAD, TONDIARPET, CHENNAI 600 081. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 16(3), CHENNAI. [PAN BKSPS 7295 A ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.GOPICHAND,C.A /RESPONDENT BY : MR. B.SAGADEVAN, JCIT, D.R ! '# / DATE OF HEARING : 23 - 1 0 - 201 8 $% ! '# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23 - 1 0 - 201 8 / O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-4,CHENNAI IN ITA NO.205/2016-17/A.Y2014-15/CIT(A)-4 DATED 26.10.2 017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. ITA NO.863/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: 2. MR.GOPICHAND REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, AND MR. B.SAGADEVAN REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD.A.R THAT IN THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADDED ALL THE TRANSACTION S AS APPEARED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS A SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITION WAS NOT CALLED FOR. 4. IN REPLY, THE LD.D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT PRODUCED EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER . FURTHER, THE LD.D.R SUBMITTED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY HAD BE EN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVI DENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PER USAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PR ODUCED EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS CALLED FOR BY T HE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCES PRODU CED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, ARE IN FACT FRESH EVIDENCES. THIS BEING SO, IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES I N THIS APPEAL IS LIABLE ITA NO.863/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER GRANTING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CASE AND I DO SO. 6 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 23 RD OCTOBER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ! '# / JUDICIAL MEMBER & / CHENNAI ' / DATED: 23 RD OCTOBER, 2018. K S SUNDARAM (!)* +*! / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ,!- . / CIT(A) 5. */0!1 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ,! / CIT 6. 023 / GF