Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHENNAI BENCHES “C” : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE- & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण चे�ई “सी” �ायपीठ म�। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHENNAI BENCHES “C” : CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं. / ITA No.1438/CHNY/2019 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2010-11 J Kothandaraman, The Deputy Commissioner 24/5, Balaji Colony, Main Vs of Income Tax, Company Road, Velachery, Circle V(2), Chennai. Chennai – 600042. PAN : AIIPR 6541 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Ms.N.V.Lakshmi – Adv. Revenue by Shri P.Sajit Kumar – JCIT Date of hearing 25/08/2022 Date of pronouncement 21/11/2022 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: 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.
The assessing officer erred in making additions under section 69 of the Act. The CIT (A) erred in upholding the same.
ITA No.1438/RPR/2018 for A.Y. 2010-11 J Kothandaraman [A]
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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 ITA No.1438/CHNY/2019 for 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
ITA No.1438/RPR/2018 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 ITA No.1438/CHNY/2019 passed in common order dated 05.01.2021, accordingly the case was re-fixed for hearing.
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.
The ld.Departmental Representative(ld.DR) for the Revenue relied on the orders of Lower Authorities.
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.
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
ITA No.1438/RPR/2018 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.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st November, 2022.
Sd/- Sd/- ( MAHAVIR SINGH) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) VICE-PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 21st Nov, 2022/ SGR* आदेशक��ितिलिपअ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. िवभागीय�ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, चे�ई ब�च, 5. चे�ई / DR, ITAT, “C” Bench, Chennai. गाड�फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.