P.M.P.STEELS LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1407/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 February 2020AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that connected appeals arising from the same issue should be disposed of by a single appellate authority to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting opinions. Therefore, the appeal was remitted back to the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

A search operation revealed that the assessee received undisclosed sale consideration for two properties sold to Duraisamy and his family members. The Assessing Officer reopened the assessment based on this discrepancy.

What were the issues?

Whether connected appeals should be heard by the same appellate authority to ensure consistency and avoid conflicting judgments.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

For Respondent: Shri. AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT
Hearing: 27.11.2019Pronounced: 21.02.2020

आदेश/ O R D E R

PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

1.

The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 3, Chennai in dated 31.03.2017 for assessment year 2010-11.

2.

A search and seizure operation was conducted at the premises of Shri. Duraisamy, during which the Revenue detected that Duraisamy and his family members had purchased two properties from the assessee, the P.M.P Steels Ltd., and its director Smt. G. Saroja through registered sale deed dated 14.12.2009 and 15.12.2009 for sale consideration of Rs. 27,58,001/- and Rs. 18,63,183/-, respectively. However, the search action revealed that the total sale consideration at Rs. 3.2 crores, for both the properties, was received but the same was not disclosed in the return filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010-11. In view of those facts and circumstances, the AO reopened the assessment u/s. 147 and re- assessed the additional sale consideration. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal.

Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.

3.

When the Ld. AR presented the case, the bench asked him what happened to the cases of Shri Duraisamy and Mrs. G. Saroja. The Ld. AR submitted that both cases are pending before another appellate authority.

Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that matter may be remitted back to the file of the CIT(A) so that all the cases can be heard by one of the appellate authorities in order to settle the issue.

4.

We heard the rival submissions. It is noticed that when two or more proceedings arose out of the connected issue, the Tribunal is of the considered opinion that only one authority has to dispose the connected

:-3-: appeals in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judicial opinion. In this case, the assessee is claimed to have received consideration over and above what is declared in the sale deed. Since the purchasers also covered and their assessments are challenged and those appeals are pending before another appellate authority, in all fairness, this appeal also has to be heard by the same appellate authority. Necessary administrative steps shall be taken to post the connected appeals before the same CIT(A), who is handling the appeals filed by the connected purchasers. In the interests of co-ordination and the justice, we deem it fit to remit this issue back to the file of learned CIT(A) and all the appeals connected may be heard and disposed by the same CIT(A) to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and conflicting judicial opinion.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on Friday, 21st February, 2020 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →