Karthikeyan Sanjeevi Raja Sajjur, CHENNAI V. ITO Non Corporate Ward 1(4), CHENNAI

ITA 986/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0921 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BHARATH
• Assessee Lawyers: K BALASUBR AMANIAN
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A BE NCH, CHENNAI . . . , . , # BEFORE SHRI N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / I.T.A. NO.986/CHNY/2018 '' /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 KARTHIKEYAN SANJEEVI RAJA SAJJUR, NO.1A. BLOCK-3, BALAJI APARTMENTS, NANDANAM, CHENNAI-600 035. VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-1(4), NANDANAM,CHENNAI-600 035 PAN: AXAPS7114G ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.K.BALASUBRAMANIAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR.S.BHARATH, CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 20.03.2019 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.03.2019 / O R D E R PER S.JAYARAMAN, AM: THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, CHENNAI, IN ITA NO. 193/CIT(A)-2/2016-17 DATED 20.10.2017 FOR ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED WITH DELAY OF 71 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN AFFIDAVIT EXPLAINING REASONS FOR THE DELAY. ON HEARING BOTH SIDES AND HAVING FOUND SUFFICIENT CAUS E FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT T HE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 2 ITA NO. 986/CHNY/2018 3. WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2014- 15, THE A.O. FOUND DIFFERENCE IN CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN THE INCOME & EXPENDITURE STATEMENT AND IN FORM 26AS AT 18,84,544/-. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN, HE ADDED THE SAME AS INCOME. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL. AGAINST THAT ORDER, THE ASSE SSEE FILED THIS APPEAL. 4. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE BEING MANPO WER PROVIDER TO VARIOUS COMPANIES, ONE SUCH COMPANY IS RAMCO GROUP OF COMPANIES. THEY HAVE DIRECTLY PAID TO WORKERS AT TH EIR SITE AND REMITTED THE SERVICE CHARGES ALONE TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH CAU SED THE IMPUGNED DIFFERENCE. HE INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE PAPER B OOK AND VARIOUS PARTICULARS AND PLEADED THAT SINCE THE DETAILS ARE COLLECTED AFTER CONTINUOUS EFFORTS AND PERSUASION AND WHICH WERE NO T CONSIDERED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD WOULD RENDER JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THIS ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE A.O FOR A PROPER EXAMINATION. PER CONTRA, LD.D R SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DIRECTED TO FURNISH ALL RELEVANT MA TERIALS WHICH ARE IN ITS SUPPORT AND COOPERATE IN DECIDING THE ISSUE AT THE EARLIEST BEFORE THE A.O. 3 ITA NO. 986/CHNY/2018 5. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. SINCE THE LD. A R IS PLEADING THAT THE RELEVANT PARTICULARS AND DETAILS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SEEKING AN EFFECTIVE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD , WE DEEM IT FIT TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. C IT(A) AND REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR A FRESH EXAM INATION. THE ASSESSEE SHALL LAY RELEVANT MATERIALS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONT ENTION BEFORE THE AO AND COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE AO IN ACCORDANC E WITH LAW. THE AO IS FREE TO CONDUCT APPROPRIATE ENQUIRY AS DEEMED FI T, BUT HE SHALL FURNISH AN EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSSEE AND DECI DE THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 25 TH MARCH, 2019 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ) ( . ) (N.R.S.GANESAN) (S.JAYARAMAN) ( ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER) ( ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) /CHENNAI, $ /DATED 25 TH MARCH, 2019 SOMU () *) /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. + () /CIT(A) 4. /CIT 5. /DR 6. /GF