Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश / O R D E R
Per S.JAYARAMAN, AM:
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-16, Chennai in dated 31.12.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15.
Shri R. Srinivasan, the assessee, could not explain the source of insurance premium paid for Rs.6,00,000/- and hence, the Assessing Officer added the same to the returned income and completed the assessment. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for the reason that the assessee failed to explain the source with supporting evidences. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.
The assessee filed an affidavit stating inter-alia, that he is an assessee since 1976, assessed to income tax at Mumbai from 1976 to 1991 and thereafter at Chennai. He was employed in reputed companies viz., Overseas Communications Services, Mumbai, Society International Telecommunication Aeronautices (SITA), Mumbai, System Telecom and Data Services, Chennai, Accel Frontline Ltd., Chennai and Reliance Communications Ltd., Chennai and he was founder and Director of M/s. Applied Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., incorporated on 23.02.2014, which is engaged in the business of software publishing and consultancy. During October, 2004, he left M/s. Applied Enterprises P Ltd., and joined with the Reliance Communications Ltd., Mumbai. During 2004 to 2009, he was drawing salary of Rs.3.5 lakhs per month, out of which he made a lot of investments in mutual funds. In the year 2009, he resigned from Reliance Communications Ltd., with terminal benefits and joined again as Director in M/s. Applied Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., in October 2009. He was temporarily into construction business as a sole proprietor between 2012 to 2017 in the Balaji Constructions. Since, he was on constant travel, he was not in a position to obtain copies of any documents and now, he verified all of his back papers, could gather details regarding investments and redemption of mutual fund in the past and willing to explain if adequate opportunity is given to him, he would also be able to substantiate the impugned sum with his bank account, statements with ICICI, Indian Bank, Canara Bank, etc. Inviting our attention to the paper book, wherein the copies of certain documents were placed, the assessee pleaded to admit these additional evidences which could not be made available earlier as the assessee could not locate his old files, get copies of relevant details and make them available to the lower authorities. Therefore, he pleaded that these additional evidences may be admitted and the case be heard on merit.
After considering the rival submissions, in the interests of justice, we admit the additional evidences.
We heard the rival submissions. Since the additional evidences are admitted which are required to be examined, we deem it fit to remit the issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination. The assessee shall lay all materials in support of his contention before the Assessing Officer and comply with the requirements of the Assessing
Officer in accordance with law. The Assessing Officer is free to conduct appropriate enquiry as deemed fit, however, he shall furnish due opportunity to the assessee on the materials etc., to be used against the assessee and on due consideration of the assessee’s clarification / explanation shall pass the order in accordance with law.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 27th August, 2019 at Chennai.