ACIT, CHENNAI V. Dr.K.R.Balakrishnan, CHENNAI

MA 149/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4852 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 17-09-2010
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOMETAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL: A- BENCH:CHENN AI (BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE. ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER) MISC. APPLICATION NO.149/MDS/2010 (IN ITA NO.1772/ MDS/08 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07) ACIT, CENTRAL CIR I(1) CHENNAI VS DR.K.R.BALAKRISHNAN, 3/684 SRIRAM LAY OUT, KOTTIVAKKAM, CHENNAI 600041 (PAN AAVPB7926D) (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY: RESPONDENT BY: SRI P.B.SEKARAN,CIT-DR NONE ORDER PER ABRAHAM P.GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS MISC. APPLICATION FILED THE REVENUE IS PLE ADING THAT THE FOLLOWING GROUND RAISED BY IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED: THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NEVER SAID THAT THE SILVER ARTICLES WEIGHING 9578 GMS. BELONGS TO HIS UNCLE. THE ASSESS EE SIMPLY STATED THAT THE SILVER ARTICLES WERE BROUGHT BY HIS WIFE A S SRIDHAN AT THE TIME OF WEDDING. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOR ITS ACQUISITION, AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING 50% OF THE ITEMS FOUND UNEXPLAINED AND BROUGHT TO TAX. MP NO 149/MDS/10 2 2. DESPITE NOTICE BEING SENT BY REGISTERED POST, NO BODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. WE FIND THAT THE ABOVE GROUND APPEARS AS GROUND NO. 3 OF THE REVENUE. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL SHO WS THAT AT PARA-2 IT HAD CITED ALL THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE INCL UDING GROUND NO.3 MENTIONED ABOVE. TRIBUNALS FINDING WAS THAT ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A) IN RELATION TO THE ISSUE RAI SED BY THE REVENUE AT GROUND NO.2 AND IT HAD THEREFORE REMITTED THE MATTE R BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR PASSING FRESH ORDER AFTER COMPLYING WITH RULE 46A (3) . OBVIOUSLY IT SEEMS GROUND NO.3 OF THE REVENUE WAS N OT CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT WHEN THE CIT(A) IS CONSIDERING THE REMITTED APPEAL, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR HI M TO RECONSIDER THE GROUND RELATING TO EXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SILVER A RTICLES AND GIVE A FRESH FINDING ON THIS ASPECT AS WELL. THIS IS SO, SINCE THE APPEAL EMANATED FROM A SEARCH ASSESSMENT AND HENCE THE ISSUES MIGHT HAVE U NDERLYING CONNECTIONS. LD. DR HAD NO OBJECTIONS TO THIS. THEREFORE, WE DIR ECT THE CIT(A) TO CONSIDER AFRESH THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SILVER ARTICLES ALSO WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPE AL AFRESH. ASSESSEE SHALL BE GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY BY THE CIT(A) FOR REPRESENTING HIS CASE. MP NO 149/MDS/10 3 3. MISC. APPLICATION OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- ( GEORGE MATHAN) SD/- (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CHENNAI: 24TH SEPTEMBER , 2010 NBR CC: ASSESSEE/ ASSESSING OFFICER/ CIT(A)/ CIT/ D.R / GUARD FILE.