SIDDHA MANIKKAM RAMESH,SALEM V. ITO, WARD 1(2), SALEM

ITA 546/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Shri Siddha Manikkam Ramesh against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC dated 17.01.2024 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. The appeal was related to a protective assessment concerning Mr. P.N. Madhaiyan, who was involved in the same business of edible oil trading as the assessee. During the proceedings, it was revealed that Mr. Madhaiyan was the actual person running the business, and the assessee was merely assisting him. The Tribunal decided to adjourn the case multiple times and eventually restored the matter to the CIT(A) to ensure both assessments are addressed together.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469608 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: P.M. KATHIR
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, ‘बी’ Ûयायपीठ, चेÛन IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI Įी जॉज[ जॉज[ क े, उपाÚय¢ एवं Įी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सदèय क े सम¢ BEFORE SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 546/CHNY/2024 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Siddha Manikkam Ramesh, 237, Main Road, Shevapet, Salem-636 002. PAN: AGDPR-1799-L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Salem. (अपीलाथᱮ/Appellant) (ᮧ᭜यथᱮ/Respondent) अपीलाथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Appellant by : Mr. P.M.Kathir, Advocate ᮧ᭜यथᱮ कᳱ ओर से/Respondent by : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाई कᳱ तारीख/Date of Hearing : 18.02.2025 घोषणा कᳱ तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 19.02.2025 आदेश /O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)/NFAC’s order dated 17.01.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18. 2. When the case was taken up for hearing to-day, the assessee’s counsel has sought for adjournment of the case by stating that protective assessment in the assessee of Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan is pending before the CIT(A). We find from the order - 2 - ITA No.546//CHNY/2024 sheet entry for similar reasons this case has been adjourned on several dates. The assessee has placed on record a paper book comprising of 21 pages enclosing therein hearing notices issued by CIT(A) in the case of one Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan for the relevant assessment year, order of assessment passed in the case of Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan, sworn statement recorded from both the assessee and Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan u/s.131 of the Act on 03.12.2019 etc. 3. On perusal of sworn statement recorded from the assessee as well as Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan, we find that Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan had stated during the course of assessment proceedings that he is the person actually carrying on business of edible oil trading and the assessee is only assisting him. Under normal circumstances, both substantial assessment and protective assessment should be heard together and not independent of each other. 4. As mentioned earlier, Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan, during the course of assessment proceedings in a statement recorded on 03.12.2019 has owned up business for running edible oil trading and so, in normal circumstances, he ought to have been assessed on a substantive basis. Since the appeal in the case of Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan [protective assessment] is pending adjudication before the CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to restore the issue - 3 - ITA No.546//CHNY/2024 raised in this appeal to the files of CIT(A), so that both substantive and protective assessments can be taken up and dispose off together. For the aforesaid reasons, we restore the matter to the files of CIT(A), with a direction that both substantive and protective assessments ought to be taken up together. It is ordered accordingly. 5. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th February, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (एस.आर. रघुनाथा) (S.R. RAGHUNATHA) लेखा सदèय/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (जॉज[ जॉज[ क े) (GEORGE GEORGE K) उपाÚय¢ /VICE PRESIDENT चेÛनई/Chennai, Ǒदनांक/Dated, the 19th February, 2025 DS आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथȸ/Appellant 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत /CIT, Chennai/Salem 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध/DR 5. गाड[ फाईल/GF. "