J.KOTHANDARAMAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT COMPANY CIRCLE V(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1438/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 November 2022AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's grounds regarding the non-provision of the remand report and lack of opportunity. The case was set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with a specific direction to provide the remand report to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was initially dismissed due to a mistaken belief that a Vivad se Vishwas application was filed. After this was corrected, the appeal was re-heard. The primary issue was the CIT(A)'s failure to provide a copy of the remand report to the assessee and grant an opportunity to be heard.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not providing the remand report to the assessee and not giving an opportunity to be heard. Whether additions made under Section 69 were justified without proper procedural fairness.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES “C” : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE- & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE

For Respondent: Shri P.Sajit Kumar – JCIT
Hearing: 25/08/2022Pronounced: 21/11/2022

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

1.

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-3, Chennai dated 19.02.2019 emanating from the assessment order dated 30.03.2013 passed by the DCIT, Circle-V(2), Chennai under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2010-11. The Grounds of appeal

raised by the assessee are as under:

1. The order of the CIT(A) is against the facts and circumstances of the case, law and the principles of equity and nature justice.

2. The assessing officer erred in making additions under section 69 of the Act. The CIT (A) erred in upholding the same.

for A.Y. 2010-11 J Kothandaraman [A]

3. The CIT (A) erred in passing the order without giving the copy of the remand report to the appellant. The appellant was also not given opportunity during the course of remand proceedings.

4. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had explained the entire cash deposits and had submitted the additional evidences during the course of appeal before him. The CIT (A) however, erred in sustaining the additions made by the assessing officer in the remand proceedings without giving the appellant an opportunity of being heard.

5. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had received Rs.9,58,500 as hand loans form various parties and had produced confirmation letters form the said parties in respect of the same.

6. The CIT (A) failed to appreciate that the appellant had obtained jewel loan by pledging jewellery to the tune of Rs.7,66,320/-. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the receipts produced by the appellant in respect of the same.”

2.

Brief history of the case: In this case, the ITAT “C” Bench, Chennai vide order dated 05.10.2021 dismissed the assessee’s appeal in A.Y. 2010-11 by the common order on the ground that assessee has filed application under Direct Tax Vivad se Viswas – 2020 Scheme. However, subsequently the assessee filed Miscellaneous Application No.10/CHNY/2021 stating that assessee’s appeal was erroneously dismissed as assessee has not filed any application under Direct Tax for A.Y. 2010-11 J Kothandaraman [A] Vivad se Viswas – 2020 Scheme, accordingly, Miscellaneous Application was heard on 27.05.2022 and allowed vide order dated 27.05.2022. The ITAT recalled its order in 05.01.2021, accordingly the case was re-fixed for hearing.

3.

The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee filed a paper book containing 16 pages. The ld.AR submitted that copy of the Remand Report was not provided to the assessee by the ld.CIT(A), therefore, the ld.CIT(A) has not given due opportunity to the assessee to file rebuttal.

4.

The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the orders of Lower Authorities.

5.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records. The Ground No.3 & 4 of the assessee are that copy of the Remand Report was not provided to the assessee, therefore, in the interest of justice, the case is set-aside to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication after giving opportunity to the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) is specifically directed to provide The Remand Report copy to the assessee. Thus, the Ground No.3 & 4 of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.

6.

The Ground No.5 & 6 of the assessee are on merits of the addition as we have set-aside the issue for denovo adjudication to the for A.Y. 2010-11 J Kothandaraman [A] ld.CIT(A), therefore, the Ground No.5 & 6 are dismissed as not adjudicated. 7. The Ground No.7 is general in nature and does not need any adjudication, hence, dismissed.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st November, 2022.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →