Thajunnisa Rep by N.A.Abuthahir, Chidambaram V. JCIT, CHENNAI

ITSSA 15/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2346 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T BANUSEKARC A MR R DUAI
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI , . ! ' # '$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G.PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T. (SS) A.NO S . 13 &14 /MDS/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1997-98 TO 2002-03 ITA NOS.2264 & 2265/MDS./2014 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-05 SHRI NNA AZEEZ, 925/926, POONAMALLEE HIGH ROAD, PURASAWAKKAM, CHENNAI-84. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(1),CHENNAI-34. [PAN ADFPN 2914 C ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) I.T.(SS)A.NO. 15/MDS/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1997-98 TO 2002-03 MS.THAJUNNISA, REPRESENTED BY N.A.ABUTHAHIR, GNANGURU CONSULTANCY,121-A,EAST CAR STREET,CHIDAMBARAM 608 001. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(1),CHENNAI-34. [PAN AADIPT 1788 P ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) I.T.(SS)A.NO. 16/MDS/2014 BLOCK PERIOD: 1997-98 TO 2002-03 M/S.ABU ESTATES PVT LTD., GNANGURU CONSULTANCY,121-A,EAST CAR STREET,CHIDAMBARAM 608 001. VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE II(1),CHENNAI-34. [PAN AAACA 6435 F ] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.T.BANUSEKAR,C.A /RESPONDENT BY : MR.R.DUAI PANDIAN,SR.AR / DATE OF HEARING : 19-09-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23-09-2016 ) / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ALL THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE D IRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(A)(C)-II, CHENNAI, DATED 29.05.2014. SINCE ISSUES INVOLVED I N ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON IN NATURE, THESE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED IT(SS)A NOS. 13 TO 16/MDS./2014 ITA NOS.2264 & 2265/MDS./14 :- 2 -: TOGETHER, HEARD TOGETHER, DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMM ON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. IT(SS)A NO.15/MDS./14 2. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS M ADE BY THE AO, WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY LD.CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS STATING THAT THE LD.CIT(A) PASSE D THE ORDER WITHOUT BRINGING LEGAL HEIR ON RECORD. BESIDES THIS, ASSESS EE RAISED OTHER POINT IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND STATING THAT THE ASSESSMEN T WAS FRAMED U/S.158BD OF THE ACT WITHOUT RECORDING THE SATISFAC TION BY THE CONCERNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT IS NOT BASED ON ANY SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH ACTION. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.A.R EXPLAIN ED BEFORE US THAT THESE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE NOT RAISED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) DUE TO INADVERTENCE AND THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED. IN OUR O PINION, DUE TO INADVERTENCE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RAISED THE ADDIT IONAL GROUNDS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE PLACE RELIANC E ON THE JUDGEMENT OF SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL PO WER COMPANY LIMITED REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383(SC), AND ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS. 4. LD.A.R FURTHER PLEADED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSME NT WAS FRAMED IN THE NAME OF NNA AZEEZ ON 28.02.2006, WHO WAS EXPIRED ON 28.04.2010 AND THE APPEALS ARE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON IT(SS)A NOS. 13 TO 16/MDS./2014 ITA NOS.2264 & 2265/MDS./14 :- 3 -: 25.03.2006 AND SHE WAS EXPIRED DURING THE COURSE OF PENDENCY OF APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) AND LD.CIT(A)S ORDER WAS P ASSED ON 29.05.2014 IN THE NAME OF DECEASED PERSON. HENCE, H E PRAYED THAT THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE BROUGHT ON R ECORD BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER U/S.250 OF THE ACT BY THE LD.CIT( A). CONSIDERING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, W E REMIT THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO BRING THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED PERSON I.E THE ASSESSEE, ON RECORD AND THE LD.CIT(A) GIVE A FAIR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE LEGAL HEIR, THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WITH THIS OBSERVATION, WE REMI T THE ENTIRE ISUSE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSI DERATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN IT(SS) )A NO. 15/MDS./2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP OSES. 6. ALL OTHER APPEALS OF ASSESSEE I.E. IT(SS) NOS.1 3 TO 16/MDS./14, 2264 & 2265/MDS./14 EMANATED FROM THE D IFFERENT ORDERS OF LD.CIT(A) PASSED U/S.250 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSE E RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS IS WITH REGARD TO MERIT OF THE ADDITION SUS TAINED BY LD.CIT(A). FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE PRIMARILY OBJECTED BEFORE US THAT THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT(A) HAVE BEEN PASSED IN THESE CASES WITHO UT GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND LD.CIT(A) HAS BASED HIS CONCLUSION ONLY ON WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, LD.A.R ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE REVENUE AUT HORITIES HAS NOT IT(SS)A NOS. 13 TO 16/MDS./2014 ITA NOS.2264 & 2265/MDS./14 :- 4 -: FURNISHED THE VARIOUS SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND SWORN IN STATEMENTS USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDING TO HIM, IT IS INAPPROPRIATE TO MAKE EXORBITANT ADDITIONS WITHOUT FURNISHING SEI ZED DOCUMENTS AND SWORN IN STATEMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. ACCORDING TO LD.D.R, AMPLE OPPORTUNITY HAS BEE N GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE USE OF TH E OPPORTUNITY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAVING NO OPTION, HE PASSED THESE ORDER ON THE BASIS OF WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS FILED BEFORE HIM. 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. CONSIDERING THE PRIMARY OBJECTIONS OF THE LD.A.R, IN OR OPINION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN FAIR OPPORTUNITY O F PERSONAL APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS LD.A.R. THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) PROPERLY AND FINALLY ON 19.09.2013, THE LD.A.R APPEARED BEFORE LD.CIT(A) AND UNDERTOOK TO F URNISH THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). HOWEVER, NOTHING WA S FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). FINALLY, LD.CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER ON 29.05.2014. IN OUR OPINION THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) I S ALSO NOT SPEAKING AND HE JUST PASSED CRYPTIC ORDER CONFIRMING THE ORD ER OF AO. HENCE, IN OUR OPINION, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IT IS APPR OPRIATE TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PUT FORTH THE ASSESS EES CASE BEFORE LD.CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THE ENTIRE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS REMITTED BACK TO IT(SS)A NOS. 13 TO 16/MDS./2014 ITA NOS.2264 & 2265/MDS./14 :- 5 -: THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION TO D ECIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO T HE ASSESSEE. IF THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THE SAME BEHAVIOR IN THE SECOND ROUN D BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AS EARLIER, THE LD.CIT(A) IS AT LIBERTY T O TAKE DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING SEIZED DOCUMENT S AND SWORN IN STATEMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THEIR COMMENTS. WIT H THIS OBSERVATION, WE REMIT THE ENTIRE ISUSE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 9. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD / - ( . ) ( G.PAVAN KUMAR ) # / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / CHENNAI !' / DATED: 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016 K S SUNDARAM #!$%%&'(%)( / COPY TO: % 1 . / APPELLANT 3. # %# *%+, / CIT(A) 5. (-.%&&/0 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. # %# * / CIT 6. .12%3 / GF