PARTH S.SHAH,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 5(4), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2567/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 November 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication, following a coordinate bench's decision in a similar case. The assessee's mother's case was partly allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition made on account of alleged money payment for the purchase of a flat. The issue is identical to that in the assessee's mother's case, where the Tribunal had directed the Assessing Officer to re-adjudicate the matter.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition on account of unexplained investment in a flat is justified, and if the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication based on a coordinate bench's order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69B,Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN

Hearing: 13.11.2019

आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai in appeal No.ITA No.33/CIT(A)-5/2016-17 dated 20.09.2017 for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2 -: 2. Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate represented on behalf of the Assessee and Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that the issue in the appeal was against the action of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in confirming the addition on account of the alleged money payment of Rs.35,90,000/- to Shri Lalichan towards purchase of flat. It was submitted by the learned Authorized Representative that similar addition has been made in the case of assessee’s mother, Smt. Sumitra Kumari, in whose case the Tribunal in vide order dated 04.01.2018 for the A.Y 2010-11, wherein the Co-ordinated Bench of this Tribunal had held as follows:

“6. With regard to the confirmation of addition, it is an admitted fact that the assessee has not at all co-operated with the Department either filing of return of income or furnishing complete particulars of income as called for under section 142(1) of the Act or even furnished any details either before the learned CIT(A) or even before the Tribunal. Based on the survey report on the conduct of survey under section 133A of the Act in the business premises of Shri Suryakanth, husband of the assessee on 07.06.2012, the unexplained investment under section 69B of the Act was determined in the hands of the assessee by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A). Since the addition was made in the hands of the assessee based on the survey report of other assessee(s) and in the absence of filing of return of income and complete particulars for assessment, we direct the assessee to file the return of income for the assessment year 2010-11 as well as furnish complete particulars as sought for under section 142(1) of the Act before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to examine the particulars of the assessee and decide the issue afresh. In case, the assessee fails to furnish complete particulars within three months from the date of this order the assessment passed under section 144 r.w.s.147 of the Act stands sustained. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.”

4.

In reply the learned Departmental Representative submitted that he had no objection if the issues were restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication afresh.

5.

We have considered the rival submission and perused the materials available on record.

6.

As it is noticed that the issue raised in assessee’s appeal is identical to the facts decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in assessee’s mother’s case referred to supra, and the issue has already been adjudicated, respectfully following the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of Chennai Tribunal referred to supra, the issue raised in the appeal of the assessee is restored to the file of Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

7.

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

Order pronounced in the open Court on 13th November, 2019 in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 69B

All 1,579 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69B →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →