Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal is directed against the CIT(A)/NFAC's order for Assessment Year 2017-18. The case was adjourned multiple times because a protective assessment for Mr. P.N. Madhaiyan, who was carrying on the edible oil trading business, was pending before the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that substantial and protective assessments should be heard together. Since the protective assessment for Mr. P.N. Madhaiyan was pending, the Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) to be heard and disposed of along with the substantive assessment.
Key Issues
Whether substantive and protective assessments should be heard together. Whether the case should be restored to the CIT(A) for joint disposal due to pending protective assessment.
Sections Cited
250, 131
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE KAND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA
O R D E R
PER GEORGE GEORGE K, VICE PRESIDENT:
This appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against CIT(A)/NFAC’s order dated 17.01.2024, passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2017-18.
When the case was taken up for hearing to-day, the assessee’s counsel has sought for adjournment of the case by stating that protective assessment in the assessee of Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan is pending before the CIT(A). We find from the order sheet entry for similar reasons this case has been adjourned on several dates. The assessee has placed on record a paper book comprising of 21 pages enclosing therein hearing notices issued by CIT(A) in the case of one Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan for the relevant assessment year, order of assessment passed in the case of Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan, sworn statement recorded from both the assessee and Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan u/s.131 of the Act on 03.12.2019 etc.
On perusal of sworn statement recorded from the assessee as well as Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan, we find that Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan had stated during the course of assessment proceedings that he is the person actually carrying on business of edible oil trading and the assessee is only assisting him. Under normal circumstances, both substantial assessment and protective assessment should be heard together and not independent of each other.
As mentioned earlier, Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan, during the course of assessment proceedings in a statement recorded on 03.12.2019 has owned up business for running edible oil trading and so, in normal circumstances, he ought to have been assessed on a substantive basis. Since the appeal in the case of Mr. P.N.Madhaiyan [protective assessment] is pending adjudication before the CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to restore the issue raised in this appeal to the files of CIT(A), so that both substantive and protective assessments can be taken up and dispose off together. For the aforesaid reasons, we restore the matter to the files of CIT(A), with a direction that both substantive and protective assessments ought to be taken up together. It is ordered accordingly.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th February, 2025.