SHRI S. NATESAN,,ERODE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1,, COIMBATORE

At the outset, ld.counsel for the assessee stated that for assessment year 2009-10, the only issue under challenge is disallowance confirmed by CIT(A) regarding investments made in the following:- (i) LIC Premium - Rs.1,13,467 (ii) ICICI Prudential Life Insurance – Rs.4,98,500 Total - Rs.6,11,967 In Assessment year 2010-11, the dispute is regarding addition of Rs.30,69,002/- making addition of opening capital u/s.68 of the Act.

The ld.counsel took us through the orders of CIT(A) in both the years and stated that there is no adjudication at all on facts despite remand report taken by CIT(A). The ld.counsel for the assessee read out the orders of CIT(A) and particularly order in assessment year 2009-10 and stated that once the CIT(A) simply affirmed the finding of AO without his independent adjudication, the order cannot survive. When these facts were put across to ld. Senior DR, he strongly relied on the order of CIT(A) and stated that the CIT(A) decided the issue after taking remand report from the AO.

3 & 3332/Chny/2019 4. After hearing both the sides and going through the facts, we noted that in both the years, the adjudication by CIT(A) is by non- speaking order and it is not clear how the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition. Even the assessee seems has not co-operated with the AO by giving full details like bank statements, etc., as noted by the AO. Further, we are inclined to set-aside the orders of CIT(A) in both the years and remand the matter back to his file for fresh adjudication. Further, we direct the assessee also to produce the entire evidence and bank statements before the CIT(A) and also any supporting evidences which helps in adjudication of these issues. In term of the above, orders of CIT(A) in both the years are set aside and matter remanded back to his file for fresh adjudication.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.