RAMESH KUMAR KOCHAR ,CHENNAI vs. DCIT , CHENNAI

आदेश /O R D E R

PER MANJUNATHA. G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, dated 30.08.2022 and pertains to block period 01.04.1996 to 17.12.2002.

:-2-: IT(SS)A. No:1/Chny/2022 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in disposing the appeal during the pendency of the remand proceedings. 3. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of a sum of Rs.38,00,596/- as unexplained stock of jewellery without appreciating the explanation provided by the appellant. 4. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of a sum of Rs.9,66,615/- as unexplained cash without considering the explanation provided by the appellant. 5. For that the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider the fact that the cash found during search pertained to one Mr.Suresh Kumar Kochar, Brother of the appellant, who had sufficiently disclosed the said cash in his return of income which was duly assessed and confirmed by the Assessing Officer. 6. For these grounds and such other grounds that may be adduced before or during the hearing of the appeal, it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to delete the disallowance made and/or provide such other relief as this Hon'ble Tribunal deems fit.”

:-3-: IT(SS)A. No:1/Chny/2022 of search, excess stock of gold jewellery to the extent of 4511.02 gms was found and cash to the extent of Rs. 9,66,615/- was also found. Consequent to search, the assessment has been completed u/s. 158BD r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, on 29.03.2007 and determined total income at Rs. 47,67,210/-, by making additions towards unexplained cash found during the course of search and unexplained stock of gold jewellery. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the first appellant authority. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has filed certain additional evidences. During the appellant proceedings, the CIT(A) furnished additional evidences filed by the assessee to the Assessing Officer for his comments. The AO, furnished his remand report on 14.02.2022 and reiterated his observations with regard to additions made in the assessment order, on the ground that the assessee could not file any evidences to substantiate its claim, even though two letters dated 27.12.2021 and 01.03.2022 was served. Therefore, the ld CIT(A) by taking into account various facts including remand report submitted by the AO, opined that the assessee could not explain excess gold jewellery as well as cash seized during the course of search and thus, sustained additions made by the AO.

:-4-: IT(SS)A. No:1/Chny/2022 4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee, submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in disposing of appeal filed by the assessee, when second remand proceedings was pending before the AO, which is evident from the fact that, although, the AO has submitted his remand report on 14.03.2022, but he has issued one more letter dated 30.07.2022 and called upon the assessee to explain its case in respect of issues remanded for verification. Therefore, argued that the matter may be set aside to the file of the CIT(A), to give one more opportunity to the assessee.

:-5-: IT(SS)A. No:1/Chny/2022 assessee on the basis of evidences filed during the course of appellant proceedings and remand report submitted by the AO, where the AO stated that the assessee could not file any evidences to justify his stand during remand proceedings, even though two letters dated 27.12.2021 and 01.03.2022 were issued. We find that although, the AO has submitted his remand report on additional evidences filed by the assessee on 14.03.2022 and reiterated his observations made during assessment proceedings on two additions in absence of any fresh evidences from the assessee side, but fact remains that after submission of remand report on 14.03.2022, the Assessing Officer has issued one more letter on 30.07.2022 and called upon the assessee to explain various issues remanded by the CIT(A) and the case was posted for hearing on 04.08.2022. From the above, it is very clear that the CIT(A) has disposed of appeal filed by the assessee when remand proceedings was pending before the AO, in violation of principle of natural justice, because when the CIT(A) has remanded the case to the AO for verification, in our considered view the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient time to the AO as well as assessee to comply with his directions. Since, the CIT(A) has disposed of appeal filed by the assessee when

:-6-: IT(SS)A. No:1/Chny/2022 remand proceedings is pending before the AO, we are of the considered view that the issue needs to go back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh consideration of the issue. Thus, we set aside the order passed by the CIT(A) and restore the issue back to the file of the CIT(A) and direct the CIT(A) to re- consider the issue afresh after giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

Sd/- Sd/- (वी दुगा� राव) (मंजुनाथ. जी) (V. DURGA RAO) (MANJUNATHA. G) �याियकसद�य/Judicial Member लेखासद�य/Accountant Member चे�ई/Chennai, �दनांक/Dated: 8th March, 2023 JPV आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ�/Appellant 2. ��यथ�/Respondent 3. आयकर आयु� (अपील)/CIT(A) 4. आयकर आयु�/CIT 5. िवभागीय �ितिनिध/DR 6. गाड� फाईल/GF