Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN
Per CHANDRA POOJARI, AM:
These three appeals are directed against the common order of the CIT(A)-III,
Kochi dated 17/12/2018 for the assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08.
It is to be noted that this impugned order of the CIT(A) is to be read alongwith the
order of the CIT(A), Trivandrum dated 30/1/2017 for the assessment year 2004-05.
The facts of the case are that the assessee originally came in appeal before
this Tribunal against the different orders of the CIT(A) dated 30/01/2017 for the
assessment years 2004-05, 2005-06 and 2007-08 along with the grounds relating to
the additions made by the Assessing Officer on merits. The assessee has also
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019 raised legal ground with regard to jurisdiction in framing of the assessment u/s.
153C of the I.T. Act in all these assessment years. The Tribunal vide order dated
13/08/2017 in ITA Nos. 257 to 259/Coch/2017 and others remitted the issue to the
file of the CIT(A) with the following observations:
“9 Having heard both the parties and other relevant material on record, we find that the assessee has taken a legal plea on the validity of the search proceedings initiated u/s 132 of the Act, on the ground that the search was carried in violation of provisions of section 132 of the Act as there was no material or evidence was seized at the time of search showing any undisclosed income. Since the legal issue raised by the assessee is emanates from the facts already on record, we deem it appropriate to admit the additional grounds raised by the assessee for adjudication. This view was supported by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Ltd (supra) wherein it was held that there is no reason to restrict the power of the Tribunal u/s 254 of the Act only to decide the grounds raised from the order of the CIT. The assessee as well as the department has a right to file appeal/cross objection before the Tribunal. There is no reason why the Tribunal should be prevented from considering the question of law arising from the assessment proceedings, although not raised earlier. However, we further notice that this legal plea has been taken first time before the Tribunal and the lower authorities did not had an occasion to consider the legal issue raised by the assessee. Whether there was an incriminating material found during the course of search or not, is a matter of fact, which can be find out from the records available with the department. Unless the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A) examine the search folder, it is difficult to conclude that that there was no incriminating material found during the search. Since the lower authorities did not had an occasion to examine the additional ground raised by the assessee challenging the validity of search proceedings in the light of claim of the assessee, we deem it appropriate to set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for his consideration and direct him to admit the additional grounds raised by the assessee and adjudicate the issue as per law.
10 Since we have set aside the issue to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudicating the additional grounds raised by the assessee on the legal issue of validity of search proceedings, the grounds raised by the assessee, challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer on merits has not been consider at this juncture.
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019 11 In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.”
In the second round, the CIT(A) considered the additional ground with regard
to jurisdiction in framing the assessment u/s. 153C of the Act which was remitted
to him by the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) observed that the
statement of bank account of the assessee found during the course of search
revealed that there were substantial cash deposits. The search records reveal that
there was incriminating information obtained from the Bank statements of the
assessee unraveled during the search u/s. 132 of the Act in the relevant assessment
years. In view of the above facts, the CIT(A) confirmed the initiation of
assessment proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act in all the assessment years.
Once again, the assessee had raised the ground relating to the initiation of
assessment proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act. However, at the time of hearing, the
Ld. AR made an endorsement that the assessee was not interested to press the
grounds relating to legal issue before the Tribunal. Accordingly, these grounds are
dismissed as not pressed for all the assessment years.
On merits, the only issue for our consideration is with regard to sustenance of
additions by the CIT(A) for all the assessment years.
The facts of the case are that for the assessment year 2004-05, the assessee
had raised the ground relating to addition of Rs.16.50 lakhs. On earlier occasion,
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019 the assessee challenged the sustenance of addition of Rs.9.5 lakhs by the CIT(A)
the addition of Rs.16.50 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer. In the second round,
the CIT(A) adjudicated only the legal issue of initiation of assessment proceedings
u/s. 153C of the Act. He has not adjudicated the grounds relating to the additions.
Originally, the Assessing Officer made the following additions:
a) Cash deposits of Rs.3,50,000/- The assessee claimed that she received a
sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from Mr. Suresh Babu as advance for sale of 3 cents
of land and deposited the same into the above mentioned bank account.
The assessee’s explanation that she received the said sum as advance from
Mr. Suresh Babu for the sale of land she owned was accepted as the same
was supported by advance agreement and sale deed copes of which were
furnished for verification. The CIT(A) deleted the addition.
b) Cash deposit of Rs.2,50,000/- According to the assessee, the deposit was
made out of the sale proceeds of 2.5 cents of land to Mr. Amrutha Kumar
vide document No.2032/2003 dated 10/07/2003. The assessee’s
explanation that she received as advance from one Mr. Amrutha Kumar for
the sale of land she owned was accepted since the same was supported by
advance agreement and sale deed copies of which were furnished for
verification. The CIT(A) deleted this addition also.
c) Cash deposit of Rs. 1 lakh The case of the assessment was that there
was no such entry for the deposit in the bank account statement which the
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019 Assessing Officer relied upon. This explanation of the assessee was
accepted since no such entry was found recorded in the account statement
with the Kerala State Co-operative Bank Ltd., Trivandrum. Hence, the
CIT(A) deleted the addition.
Regarding the addition of Rs.9 lakhs deposited in the Bank account, the
assessee offered the explanation that the deposit was made out of sale proceeds of
3.055 cents of land at Manacaud village sold vide document No.27448/2001 dated
18/10/2001. Out of sale proceeds of Rs.11,00,000/-, Rs.10,00,000/- was invested
in the ration wholesales business, M/s. Ahamed & Company and withdrawn the
same on 10/10/2003 and remitted into her account with the Kerala State Co-
operative Bank ltd. Contradicting the above explanation, it was further contended
that her husband was managing partner of the firm Ahamed & Company and some
of the sale proceeds and daily collections of the firm amounting to Rs.9 lakhs were
given to her in the absence of her husband from the town which in turn had been
deposited into her account. However, during the course of appeal hearing, the
assessee came out with different explanation stating that the borrowal of Rs.9 lakhs
from her sister-in-law Mrs. Kalpana on 10/10/2003 was actually deposited into her
account on the same date.
The CIT(A) rejected the explanations of the assessee since the very existence
of the firm M/s. Ahamed & Company had not been established beyond doubt at any
point of time. Similarly, the CIT(A) found that the identity and creditworthiness of
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019 Mrs. Kalpana had not been proved beyond doubt and it was also not known when
the said amount was returned to her and what was the source for that. In view of
the above, the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made on account of unexplained
deposit amounting to Rs.9 lakhs.
8.1 Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.
8.2 The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) failed to adjudicate the grounds relating
to additions made by the Assessing Officer on merits.
8.3 The ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).
The assessee has raised the following grounds in ITA No.43/Coch/2019 for the
assessment year 2005-06:
The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kochi in ITA No.168ATVM/ClT(A)-W/2010-11 dated 17.12.2018 for the asst. year 2005-06, is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case.
The CIT (A) further went wrong in failing to adjudicate the issue of short term capital gain amounting to Rs.29,22,500/- which is disputed in the Memorandum of Appeal..
The CIT(A) should have found that the estimation of sale consideration at Rs.35 lakhs and the cost of acquisition at Rs.5,77,500/- were both arbitrary and unsustainable. 4. The assessing and 1st appellate authority failed to appreciate that the cost of improvement/renovation work done on the existing old building also improved the value of the immovable property and such value is reflected in the sale consideration. As such, the cost of improvement should also have been taken into account in this behalf.
The learned CIT(A) also grossly erred in not accepting the source for Rs.15 lakhs, which were considered as acceptable source and which was rejected alleging want of identity/details and creditworthiness of the person. 6
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019
In this connection, it is also respectfully submitted that the reasons stated for rejection of explanation are in the realm of suspicion and surmises and unsupported by any legally admissible evidence.
In this connection, it is also respectfully submitted that there is also failure on the part of the assessing and the first appellate authority to apply the principles of law as regards the burden of proof in the matter of adjudication of credits and borrowings, so far as the provisions contained in section 68 and other connected statutory provisions are concerned.
It is also respectfully submitted that the assessing officer was wholly unjustified in passing the assessment u/s. 144 without affording adequate opportunity to offer explanation with regard to the subject matter of the assessment. There is, thus, violation of principles of natural justice, which vitiate the assessment.
The CIT (A) went wrong in dismissing the appeal by confining his findings to the validity of the proceedings against the assessment u/s.153C of the Act thereby sustaining the entire assessment without going into the merits of the addition.
The appellant respectfully submits that the assessment order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 153A of the Act is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable for the reason that section 153A has been wrongly invoked in the appellant's case.
Moreover, no incriminating material was found against the appellant so as to assume jurisdiction u/s.153C(a) of the Act. The assessment proceedings initiated against the appellant are, therefore, ab initio void and without jurisdiction.
The CIT (A) is also unjustified in not adjudicating the issue on merits but confining to the question of validity of proceedings U/S.153C vide last para of the appellate order.
13 In this connection, the CIT (A) ought to have found and accepted the appellant's contention that the finding of the learned Appellate Tribunal towards the concluding part of para 9 of the common order in ITA Nos.257/C/2017 dated 31/08/2017 in which Miscellaneous applications were submitted as regards the issue raised in MA Nos.22 to 124/C/2018 clarified the order by observing that “if the assessee is aggrieved by CIT(A)’s orders passed subsequent to the ITAT order dated 31/08/2017, can file appeals to the ITAT, raising all issues raised in the original appeal before the Tribunal, i.e, ITA Nos.257 to 259/C/2017. It is ordered accordingly." It is submitted that the above situation had not arisen in the appellant's case because the CIT (A) has not passed any order subsequent to the ITAT's order dated 31.8.2017 before passing the order in MA Nos. 22 to 24/C/2018 dated 7.9.2018, which is the last order passed. So much so, the CIT (A) ought to have adjudicated both the issues as regards the jurisdiction and the merit of the case. 7
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019
The appellant further respectfully submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383 and the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Promy Kuriakose reported in (2016) 386 ITR 597 also should have considered by the CIT (A) in this regard.
Moreover, a specific finding was also made by the Appellate Tribunal in the order in ITA Nos. 257 to 259/C/2017 dated 31.8.2017 along with the appeals filed by Shri K. Nandakumar and Smt. Remy Nandakumar and held in para 9 that whether there was an incriminating material found during the search or not is a matter of fact, which can be found out from the records available with the Department. The issue was, therefore, set aside to the file of the CIT (A) wherefrom the jurisdiction to consider both the grounds, namely, legal issue regarding validity of the search as well as adjudication on the merits came to be restored to the CIT (A).
It is submitted that piece meal adjudication of the appeal is not contemplated or permitted u/s. 251 of the Act. Under that section, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have all powers in disposing an appeal against an order of assessment. He may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Section 256(1) (c) further stipulates that in any other case, the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass such orders in the appeal as he think fit.
In this connection, the appellant also respectfully submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has deal with the issue regarding the power of the Appellate Authority in the leading judgment in the case of CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) (53 ITR 225) (SC).
In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that the CIT (A) should have found that the appeal filed before him required adjudication both in regard to validity of the proceedings as well as on merits and that in an appeal pending before him, he is required to adjudicate all issues arising from out of the asst. order as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The appellant humbly prays that the grounds of appeal before the CIT (A) as well as before this Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA Nos.257 to 259/C/2017 may also be considered as part of these grounds.
The appellant craves leave to file additional grounds at the time of hearing.
For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant humbly prays that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, may kindly be pleased to set aside the order of the 1st appellate authority and of the assessing officer, allow the appeal and render justice.
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019
9.1 The assessee has not pressed Ground Nos 2, 3 & 4 and hence, they are
dismissed as not pressed.
The facts of the case are that for the Assessment Year 2005-06, the
assessment was made as per order dated 31.12.2009 u/s 144 r.w.s. 153C of the
Act, after issuing notice u/s 153C dated 20.03.2009. The Assessing Officer
estimated short term capital gain amounting to Rs.29,22,500/-. The assessee sold a
property consisting of 9.21 Cents of land along with old building therein as per
document No.1469/2005 executed on 31.03.2005 in favour of Shri. Byju Devaraj
and Smt. Simi for Rs.19,50,000/-. The Assessing Officer determined the capital gain
by making two adjustments namely – (1) no amount was allowed towards repairs of
the building but considered Rs.5,77,500/- as the cost of the property being Rs. 5
lakhs as the consideration and Rs.77,500/- as the expenditure on stamp duty and
registration. (2) The second adjustment was that the sale consideration of
R.19,50,000/- was enhanced to Rs.35 lakhs by rejecting the sale value as per the
sale deed.
On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed the findings of the Assessing Officer.
Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.
12.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the consideration received for the sale was
Rs.19,50,000/-, which is apportioned in the document towards value of land of
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019 Rs.9,50,000/- and value of building of Rs.10 lakhs). It was submitted that the
assessee had spent a sum of Rs.14,25,000/- on renovation of the building, since the
building was a pretty old at the time of purchase and needed substantial repairs.
The property was purchased on 02.08.2003 and sold in 31.03.2005. Soon after the
purchase, the repairs were commenced and before it could be completed, there was
an offer for purchase from Shri. Byju Devaraj and the assessee agreed to sell the
house for Rs.19,50,000/-. A sum of Rs.50,000/-was spent as brokerage and net
consideration received was Rs.19,50,000/-. It was submitted that the value was
apportioned between land value and building value at Rs.9,50,000/- and Rs.10 lakhs
respectively in the sale deed. The Ld. AR submitted that without disclosing the
statement of Shri Byju Devaraj, the purchaser of the property that the consideration
paid was Rs.35 lakhs, the Assessing Officer fixed the sale value at Rs.35 lakhs. The
Assessing Officer determined the capital gain at Rs.29,22,50O/- (difference between
Rs.35 lakhs - Rs.5,77,500/-). According to the Ld. AR there was no capital gain
arising out of the transaction, because, the cost of improvement carried out to the
building before sale is to be taken into account and secondly, the enhancement of
the sale consideration from Rs.19.5 lakhs to Rs.35 lakhs was contrary to the
consideration as per the registered sale deed and such value wass admitted and
declared before the Sub Registrar at the time of registration. It was submitted that
the Assessing Officer also did not afford reasonable opportunity to the assessee to
cross examine Shri. Byju Devaraj, whose statement was relied on for making the
addition. It was submitted that there was also a co-owner, Smt. Simi who had
purchased the property along Shri. Byju Devaraj, who was also not examined. In
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019 this connection, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had already produced in the
course of the hearing a note which was submitted before the CIT(A) along with the
accompanying statements which also may kindly be considered.
12.2 It was submitted that the claim of renovation work carried out through M/s.
Omega Constructions to the building before sale was also made before the CIT(A).
However, the CIT(A) did not consider the issue merely on presumptions and
surmises and without considering the documentary evidence produced before him.
Thus, it was prayed that the documents produced before the CIT(A) may kindly be
considered afresh.
12.3 The Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).
The assessee has raised the following grounds in ITA No. 44/Coch/2019 for
the assessment year 2007-08:
The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-III, Kochi in ITA No.169ATVM/ClT(A)-W/2010-11 dated 17.12.2018 for the asst. year 2007-08, is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case.
The CIT (A) further went wrong in failing to adjudicate the addition of Rs.7,59,875/- in the computation of total income.
The assessing and the first appellate authority failed to appreciate that the creditors Mrs. Tara Sanadanan and her husband, Mr. Sanadanan had adequate resources to extend financial help to the appellant, which has also been confirmed by the creditors and evidence in support thereof, produced before the assessing and appellate authorities. 4. It is further respectfully submitted that similar issue raised in the Memorandum of Appeal for the asst. year 2005-06 and prior year may kindly be considered as part of these grounds.
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019 5. The CIT (A) went wrong in dismissing the appeal by confining his findings to the validity of the proceedings against the assessment u/s.153C of the Act without going into the merits of the addition.
The appellant respectfully submits that the assessment order passed u/s.144 r.w.s. 153A of the Act is arbitrary, illegal and unsustainable for the reason that section 153A(c) has been wrongly invoked in the appellant's case.
It is also submitted that no incriminating material was found against the appellant so as to assume jurisdiction u/s.153C of the Act. The assessment proceedings initiated against the appellant are, therefore, ab initio void and without jurisdiction.
The CIT (A) is also unjustified in not adjudicating the issue on merits but confining to the question of validity of proceedings U/S.153C vide last para of the appellate order.
In this connection, the CIT (A) ought to have found and accepted the appellant's contention that the finding of the learned Appellate Tribunal towards the concluding part of para 9 of the common order in ITA Nos.257/C/2017 dated 31/08/2017 in which Miscellaneous applications were submitted as regards the issue raised in MA Nos.22 to 124/C/2018 clarified the order by observing that “if the assessee is aggrieved by CIT(A)’s orders passed subsequent to the ITAT order dated 31/08/2017, can file appeals to the ITAT, raising all issues raised in the original appeal before the Tribunal, i.e, ITA Nos.257 to 259/C/2017. It is ordered accordingly." It is submitted that the above situation had not arisen in the appellant's case because the CIT (A) has not passed any order subsequent to the ITAT's order dated 31.8.2017 before passing the order in MA Nos. 22 to 24/C/2018 dated 7.9.2018, which is the last order passed. So much so, the CIT (A) ought to have adjudicated both the issues as regards the jurisdiction and the merit of the case.
The appellant further respectfully submits that the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of NTPC Ltd. Vs. CIT reported in (1998) 229 ITR 383 and the judgment of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Promy Kuriakose reported in (2016) 386 ITR 597 also should have considered by the CIT (A) in this regard.
Moreover, a specific finding was also made by the Appellate Tribunal in the order in ITA Nos. 257 to 259/C/2017 dated 31.8.2017 along with the appeals filed by Shri K. Nandakumar and Smt. Remy Nandakumar and held in para 9 that whether there was an incriminating material found during the search or not is a matter of fact, which can be found out from the records available with the Department. The issue was, therefore, set aside to the file of the CIT (A) wherefrom the jurisdiction to consider both the grounds, namely, legal issue
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019 regarding validity of the search as well as adjudication on the merits came to be restored to the CIT (A).
It is submitted that piece meal adjudication of the appeal is not contemplated or permitted u/s. 251 of the Act. Under that section, the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have all powers in disposing an appeal against an order of assessment. He may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment. Section 256(1) (c) further stipulates that in any other case, the Commissioner (Appeals) may pass such orders in the appeal as he think fit.
In this connection, the appellant also respectfully submits that the Hon’ble Apex Court has deal with the issue regarding the power of the Appellate Authority in the leading judgment in the case of CIT vs. Kanpur Coal Syndicate (1964) (53 ITR 225) (SC).
In this connection, it is respectfully submitted that the CIT (A) should have found that the appeal filed before him required adjudication both in regard to validity of the proceedings as well as on merits and that in an appeal pending before him, he is required to adjudicate all issues arising from out of the asst. order as per the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court.
The appellant humbly prays that the grounds of appeal before the CIT (A) as well as before this Hon'ble Tribunal in ITA Nos.257 to 259/C/2017 may also be considered as part of these grounds.
The appellant craves leave to file additional grounds at the time of hearing.
For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant humbly prays that the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Cochin Bench, may kindly be pleased to set aside the order of the 1st appellate authority and of the assessing officer, allow the appeal and render justice.
13.1 The assessee has not pressed Ground Nos 2, 3 & 4 and hence, they are
dismissed as not pressed.
The facts of the case are that for the Assessment Year 2007-08, in the
Assessment Order dated 31.12.2009, the Assessing Officer has made the following
two additions:
Unexplained Investments - Rs.6,03,950/- 13
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019 Unexplained Investments - Rs.1,55,925/-
The Assessing Officer made two additions viz.
Advance paid to Ms. T.A.Omana - Rs.5,00,000/-
Purchase of 5 cents of property from Mr Sahadevan vide Document No.874/2007 - Rs.1,03,950/- Rs.6,03,950/-
The next addition of Rs.1,55,925/- relates to estimated cost of the remaining 7.5
cents of land in which the house was constructed. The cost of 7.5 cents was
estimated proportionately.
On appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed both the additions of Rs.6,03,950/- and
Rs.7,62,008/-.
Against this, the assessee is in appeal before us.
16.1 The Ld. AR submitted that the actual price of the land along with stamp duty
wass only Rs.1,48,400/- and not Rs.1,55,925/- for the property purchased from
Shri. Vijayan. It was submitted that the property purchased from Shri Vijayan was
for Rs.1,40,000/-, which was paid, out of the sum of Rs.1,50,000/- availed as
financial assistance from Smt. Tara Sadanandan, Kaimanam, Thiruvananthapuram
who had drawn the amount from her bank account and evidence thereof along with
her confirmation, were produced before the CIT(A) and a copy of the purchase
document was also produced herewith for verification.
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019 16.2 So far as the second property is concerned, it was submitted that this was
purchased from the previous owner Shri Sahadevan for a sum of Rs.90,000/- and is
supported by the sale deed. It was submitted that for the purchase of the above
property, the assessee withdrew the amount from her bank account in State Co-
operative Bank on that date. The Ld. AR submitted that her explanation along with
a photo copy of the bank account may be accepted as supported by evidence and
proof.
16.3 The Ld. AR submitted that the second addition of Rs.5,00,000/- included in
the unexplained investment of Rs.6,03,950/- was based on an agreement entered into between the assessee and Smt. T.A. Omana on 17th July 2006 by which the
assessee agreed to purchase a property belonging to Smt. Omana for Rs.30 lakhs
and also agreed to pay an advance of Rs.5 lakhs. According to the Ld. AR, this
transaction did not materialize and neither advance was paid nor the property was
purchased. It was submitted that the agreement was not performed and as such
the estimated addition of Rs.5 lakhs for investment in purchase of immovable
property did not take place. The Ld. AR submitted that since the transaction did not
materialize, the question of payment of advance did not arise. Therefore, the
addition is to be vacated.
16.4 Regarding the observation made by the Assessing Officer that the assessee
made investment towards purchase of immovable property by paying advance of
Rs.5 lakhs on 17.7.2006 to Ms T.A. Omana, it was submitted that it was contrary to
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019 the facts and evidence on record. It was submitted that both the Assessing Officer
and the CIT(A) did not accept the explanation of the assessee . The matter was
taken before the Tribunal which remanded the issue back to the fileof the CIT(A).
Hence, it was submitted that the addition of Rs.5 lakhs may be deleted.
The Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. For all the
assessment years, the CIT(A) had considered the additional ground with regard to
jurisdiction in framing the assessment u/s. 153C of the Act which was remitted to
him by the Tribunal for fresh consideration. The CIT(A) observed that there was
incriminating information obtained from the Bank statements of the assessee
unraveled during the search u/s. 132 of the Act in the relevant assessment years.
In view of the above facts, the CIT(A) confirmed the initiation of assessment
proceedings u/s. 153C of the Act in all the assessment years. However, he has not
at all adjudicated the additions made by the Assessing Officer on merits. Hence,
we are inclined to remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh
consideration in all the three assessment years as the order of the Assessing Officer
was passed ex parte u/s 144 of the Act. The appeals of the assessee are partly
allowed for statistical purposes.
I.T.A. Nos.42-44/Coch/2019 19. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical
purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 22nd May, 2019.
sd/- sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Place: Kochi Dated: 22nd May, 2019 GJ Copy to: 1. Smt. Jalaja Nair, Amrutha Nagar, Kaimanam, Trivandrum. 2. The Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax (Inv. Circle), Central Circle-2, Trivandrum 3. The Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals)-III, Kochi. 4. The Commissioner of Income-tax, Central, Kochi. 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., Cochin Bench, Cochin. 6. Guard File. By Order
(ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., Cochin