Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘D’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER Shri Sambhav Kumar Ajithraj against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, in /CIT(A)-13/2014-15 dated 22.09.2017 for assessment year 2014- 15, and Assessee, Shri Ajithraj Abinandhan against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, in ITA No.102/CIT(A)- 13/2014-15 dated 22.09.2017 for assessment year 2014-15.
As the issues raised in the above two appeals are inter-connected, these two appeals filed by different assessees are disposed off by this common order.
Mr.N.Vijaykumr represented on behalf of the Assessee and Mr.Balina Suresh Babu represented on behalf of the Revenue.
It was submitted by ld.A.R that the assessee is in the business of jewellery and money lending. It was a submission that on account of non-representation before the ld. Assessing Officer, the assessments had been completed on 29.12.2016 u/s.144 of the Act. It was a submission that before the ld.CIT(A), the assessee had placed substantial evidences, but in the Remand Report, the ld. Assessing & 715/chny/2018 :- 3 -:
Officer had made statement that in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee or his duly authorized representative could not furnish any explanation to the cash credits available in the assessee’s bank accounts. It was a submission that even in the Remand Proceedings, no opportunity was given to the assessee to substantiate their cases. It was a submission that in the order of the CIT(Appeals) at page-9 also, the Ld.CIT(A) has recorded that the ld. Assessing Officer had once again given many opportunities of being heard and thereafter submitted a remand report. It was a submission that no opportunity had been given to the assessee. At this point, the ld.D.R was directed to produce the assessment records. More so, the order sheet recordings to verify as to whether opportunity had been granted by the ld. Assessing Officer in the course of remand proceedings. The ld.D.R after verification of the records submitted that there was no recording of any specific opportunity being granted to the assessee in the course of Remand Proceedings. It was submitted by ld.D.R that he had no objection, if the issues were restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
We have considered the rival submissions. As it is noticed that the assessee has not been granted adequate opportunity in the course of Remand Proceedings, in the interest of natural justice, and & 715/chny/2018 :- 4 -:
considering the fact that the assessment itself is exparte assessment, the issues raised in both the appeals are restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting adequate opportunity of being heard.
In the result, both the appeals of the assessees in the cases of Shri Sambhav Kumar Ajithraj and Shri Ajithraj Abinandhan are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24th December, 2018, at Chennai.