Nanu Rajees, Kannur V. ITO - Ward 4, Kannur Range, Kannur

ITA 894/COCH/2022

AI Insights

The case involves Nanu Rajees, the proprietor of Malabar Steel Industries, who appealed against the order of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, for the assessment year 2005-06. The primary contention was the lack of opportunity to be heard regarding the additions made during the reassessment under sections 143(1) and 147 of the Income Tax Act. The additions included interest on loans, unexplained investments, and income from other sources. The CIT(A) had dismissed the initial appeal due to non-submission of any response from the assessee, which led to the current appeal before the Tribunal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 115281 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Matter Remanded
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ANAND V.S.
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 147; 148; 143(1)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH : COCHIN BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND Ms. PADMAVATHY S., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.894/Coch/2022 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Nanu Rajees, Proprietor, Malabar Steel Industries, Nelliparamba, Taliparamba P.O., 670 141 Kannur Dist. Kerala. PAN : ADYPR 0334F Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Kannur Range, Kannur. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Anand V.S., Advocate Revenue by : Smt. J M Jamuna Devi, Sr. AR Date of hearing : 12.01.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 20.01.2023 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, Accountant Member: This appeal is against the order of CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [NFAC], Delhi, dated 22.7.2022. for the assessment year 2005-06. 2. The assessee filed the return of income for AY 2005-06 on 6.9.2005 declaring a total income of Rs.1,58,370. The return was processed u/s. 143(1) on 14.9.2005. Subsequently the assessment was reopened u/s 147 and a notice u/s. 148 was issued on the assessee. The assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 filed a return of income on ITA No.894 /Coch/2022 Page 2 of 3 4.8.2011 disclosing a total income of Rs.1,58,370. The AO concluded the reassessment by making the following additions:- (i) Interest on loans considered as used for personal purposes – Rs.34,746 (ii) Unexplained investments – Rs.6,31,000 (iii) Income from Other Sources – Rs.24,000 3. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for the reason that despite several opportunities the assessee did not make any submission with regard to the impugned addition and therefore upheld the order of the AO. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal on the ground that no opportunity of being heard was given to the assessee before the CIT(A) and also on merits. 4. During the course of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee be given an opportunity of being heard before the CIT(A) who did not consider the merits of the case. The ld. DR did not raise any objections to this request made by the ld. AR. Accordingly in the interest of justice, we remit the appeal back to the CIT(Appeals) to give one more opportunity to the assessee to submit the relevant documents with regard to various additions/disallowances made. The assessee is directed to cooperate with the proceedings. It is ordered accordingly. ITA No.894 /Coch/2022 Page 3 of 3 5. In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on this 20 th day of January, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- ( BEENA PILLAI ) ( PADMAVATHY S ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Bangalore, Dated, the 20 th January, 2023. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore/Cochin.