ARUNACHALAM ANBUVANAN,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 15(1), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1013/CHNY/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 July 2019AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission regarding lack of opportunity. It decided to restore the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order was dismissed ex-parte. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity to be heard, despite an adjournment petition being filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee, and whether additions made under Section 68 were justified.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO

Hearing: 29.07.2019Pronounced: 31.07.2019

आदेश / O R D E R

PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Chennai, dated 29.01.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15.

The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 2.

1.

The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.

2.

The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 3. The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.8,15,8581 - to the total income being the amount shown as sundry creditor in the balance sheet. 3.1 The Commissioner of Incometax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Assessee was a Partner in a Firm called Mathivanan Agency and the balance of Rs.8, 15,8581 - represent the amount due to the firm by the Assessee. The firm was dissolved and the Assessee took over the firm with it's Assets and Liabilities. The balance of Rs.8,15,8581 - is only a capital to him and not a loan. 4. The Commissioner of Income tax (appeals) erred in confirming a sum of Rs.90,66,543/- as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act. 4.1 The Commissioner of Income tax (appeals) ought to have appreciated that assessee vide letter dt 15.12.2016 furnished the ledger accounts of the loan parties; Name, address and PAN and Reconciliation of loans received with bank statement. 4.2 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that assessee has explained the nature and source of credits found in the books. Merely because some of the creditors did not respond to the notice u/s.133(6) the same cannot be treated as unexplained credits in the hands of assessee. 4.3 The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the Assessee has obtained the loan through a mediator who had taken commission from the Assessee. All the loans carry interest which was paid by account payee cheque. 4.4 The Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) ought to have granted further time for getting the confirmation from the creditors.

The brief facts of the case are that the Appellant-assessee namely Shri 3.

Arunachalam Anbuvanan, is an individual, a dealer of Indian Oil Corporation and is in the business of construction of residential projects. The return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 was filed on 30.11.2014 declaring total income of Rs.17,69,950/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate ward 15(1),Chennai (hereinafter referred as ‘’AO') vide order dated 28.12.2016 passed u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) at total income of Rs.1,16,89,280/- after making certain additions of Rs.90,50,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act, and of Rs.8,15,8581/- to the total income being the amount shown as sundry creditor in the balance sheet.

Being aggrieved by additions made by Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), who vide his order dismissed the appeal exparte. Being aggrieved with the order of the ld.CIT(A), the assessee is before us in the present appeal.

4.

It is submitted by ld.AR before us that when the appeal was posted for 21.01.2019 for disposal, an adjournment petition was filed before ld.CIT(A) and despite the adjournment petition, the ld.CIT(A) proceeded with the disposal of the matter without giving sufficient opportunities. It is submitted that the matter may be restored to the file of ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration in accordance with law.

5.

On the other hand, Senior ld.DR has no serious objections.

6. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. Considering the submissions of both the parties, we are of the considered opinion that the matter remission back to the file of ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication in accordance with law after giving in reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

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

Order pronounced on the 31st July, 2019 in Chennai.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →