VENKATAPERUMAL KANDASAMY,SALEM V. ITO, WARD-1(1), SALEM

ITA 3216/CHNY/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Venkataperumal Kandasamy against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed the disallowance of expenses amounting to Rs.10,36,255 claimed for land development during the Assessment Year 2011-12. The primary contention was the non-production of books of accounts during the assessment proceedings, which led to the initial disallowance by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal noted a similar case involving the assessee's wife, where a similar addition was made and subsequently remanded back to the Assessing Officer. Following this precedent, the Tribunal restored the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination, allowing the assessee to submit all relevant details and documents.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312619 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GOUTHAMI MANIVASAGAM
• Assessee Lawyers: S.SRIDHAR ERODE
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘बी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.3216/Chny/2024 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Year: 2011-12 Venkataperumal Kandasamy, 21/74, Rasi Agencies, Muniappan Koil Street, Shevapet, Salem-636 002. v. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem. [PAN: ANCPK 9323 M] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.S. Sridhar (Erode), Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 04.03.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, dated 27.09.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as \"AY”) 2011-12. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee brought to our notice that there was a delay of ‘17’ days in filing of this appeal and ITA No.3216/Chny/2024 (AY 2011-12) Venkataperumal Kandasamy :: 2 :: explained the cause for the delay, which we find to be excusable and hence, we condone the delay of ‘17’ days and proceed to adjudicate the appeal on merits. 3. At the outset, the Ld.AR of the assessee brought to our notice that the sole issue is only regarding the disallowance of the expenses claimed towards the land development of Rs.10,36,255/-. According to assessee, since assessee couldn’t produce the relevant evidence to substantiate the ibid expenses, the AO disallowed the same. However, according to the Ld.AR, during the appellate proceedings, the assessee filed additional evidences to substantiate the expenses and pursuant to it, the Ld.CIT(A) sought Remand Report from AO wherein, the AO reiterated the additions only because the assessee during assessment proceedings didn’t produce the books of accounts. Acting on the ibid report,, the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO. Before us, the Ld.AR undertakes to file the books of accounts as well as the relevant evidences to substantiate the land development expenditure before the AO. In this regard, the Ld.AR further brought to our notice that similar addition was made in the hands of the assessee’s wife (Ms.Kandasamy Mani) who also had filed the appeal before this Tribunal against similar/identical action of the AO which was again confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) and this Tribunal vide order dated 05.06.2024 in ITA No.365/Chny/2024 for AY 2011-12 has restored the ITA No.3216/Chny/2024 (AY 2011-12) Venkataperumal Kandasamy :: 3 :: issue back to the file of the AO for fresh action in accordance to law. Therefore, assessee pleads for similar action by the Tribunal. 4. Having heard both the parties, we find that similar issue had come up for consideration before this Tribunal in respect of assessee’s wife’s for the same AY 2011-12 and notes that on the very same issue, an addition of Rs.10,44,755/- was made in her hands because she couldn’t file evidence to substantiate the expenditure in respect of land development and notes that this Tribunal was pleased to set aside the issue back to the file of the AO vide order dated 05.06.2024 (supra). Since the facts and issues are the same, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the assessee’s wife’s case, we restore the issue back to the file of AO as held by the Tribunal in assessee’s wife’s case and notes that Tribunal held as under: 8. The ld. DR vehemently opposed the same. Heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the record, we note that during the assessment proceedings, it was stated that the assessee was not in a position to produce the details of land development expenditure, which is clear from page No. 3 of the assessment order, we find the same were filed before the ld. CIT(A) by way of additional evidence in the form of bills and vouchers. The ld. CIT(A) sought remand report, but, however, for nonproduction of books of accounts, the Assessing Officer reiterated the same addition. The first appellate authority, for non-production of complete evidences, confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 9. The assessee, placed on record the notice dated 17.10.2023 issued by the Assessing Officer in the remand proceedings at page 25 of appeal memo, wherein, it is noted that the Assessing Officer requested the assessee to furnish original bills, bank statement and original receipt from 3rd party. As rightly pointed out by the ld. AR, books of accounts were not asked by the Assessing Officer. The ld. AR contends that books of accounts were produced during the course of assessment proceedings and since no request made by the Assessing Officer, the assessee did not produce the same in the remand proceedings. But, however, the assessee is ready to produce now, in case this Tribunal afford an opportunity to the assessee for furnishing books of account. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances and in the interest of ITA No.3216/Chny/2024 (AY 2011-12) Venkataperumal Kandasamy :: 4 :: justice, we deem it proper to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The assessee shall submit all details in support of his claim. Thus, ground Nos. 5 to 8 is allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Respectfully following the decision of Tribunal in the assessee’s wife’s case (supra), we restore the issue back to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. 6. Needless to say that assessee to be diligent and to file written submissions/relevant documents before the AO and the AO to frame assessment in accordance to law after hearing the assessee. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 29th day of April, 2025, in Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0001याियक सद\bय/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 29th April, 2025. TLN आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0010/Appellant 2. \u0011\u0012थ\u0010/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0018/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0011ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF "