PALANIANDI PILLAI PADIKKASU,SIVAGANGA DISTRICT vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, KARAIKUDI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 592/CHNY/2021Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 July 2022AY 2012-132 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO failed to dispose of the assessee's objections to the reopening of the assessment. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's agricultural income from eucalyptus wood sale was treated as business income by the AO, leading to an addition of Rs. 71.94 Lacs. The assessee objected to the reopening of the assessment, arguing it was based on a change of opinion.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was validly done without disposing of the assessee's objections and whether the income was agricultural or business income.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

आयकर अपील सं./ (िनधाBरण वषB / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Shri Palaniandi Pillai Padikkasu DCIT, बनाम/ No.7/2/20, Kundrakudi Road, Pallathur, Circle-1, Vs. Karaikudi, Sivaganga District – 630 107. Karaikudi. �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइ आर सं./PAN/GIR No. ABEPP-2925-L (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) : (��थ� / Respondent) अपीलाथ� की ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri G. Baskar & Shri I. Dinesh (Advocates)-Ld. ARs ��थ� की ओरसे/Respondent by : Shri ARV. Sreenivasan (Addl. CIT) –Ld. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07 -07-2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 07 -07-2022 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short [CIT(A)] dated 29-10-2021 in the matter of assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143(3) r/w s. 147 of the Act on 27-12-2017. The Ld. AR submitted that objections to reopening were not disposed- off by Ld. AO. The Ld. Sr. DR controverted the same. Having heard rival submissions, our adjudication would be as under.

2 - 2. The assessee was saddled with addition of Rs.71.94 Lacs in an assessment framed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 on 27.12.2017. The same represent agricultural income on sale of eucalyptus wood. The Ld. AO held on opinion that the same would be business income. Accordingly the case was reopened which was opposed by the assessee on the ground that it was on mere change of opinion. However, Ld. AO, without dealing with the same, held that the income would be business income. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the stand of Ld. AO. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us on legal grounds as well as on merits.

3.

Upon careful consideration, we find that the legal grounds assailing reopening has not been dealt with by Ld. AO while framing the assessment. The relevant facts of reopening are missing. Therefore, without delving much deeper, we set-aside the impugned order and restore the matter of assessment back to the file of Ld. AO. The Ld. AO is directed to dispose-off the objections of the assessee and thereafter, proceed with adjudication on merits after considering assessee’s submission. The assessee is directed to substantiate his case.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 07th July, 2022.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →