Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI S. JAYARAMAN
आदेश/ O R D E R
PER S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
The assessee filed this appeal against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai in dated 19.09.2017 for assessment year 2013-14.
Shri. M. Duraivelu, the assessee, as an individual as well as in HUF status also engaged in the business of transportation owning vehicles, admitted income u/s. 44AE. Since, the cash deposits in savings bank accounts which were more than the turnover, the assessee’s case was selected for scrutiny. During the assessment proceedings, the AO gathered information from Regional Transport Office. Based upon such information and after considering assessee’s reply etc completed the assessment determining 20% of credits in HDFC bank account as income from lorry business and Rs. 1,73,79,690/- from certain bank accounts as an unexplained investment from money lending business. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions. Aggrieved against that order, the assessee filed this appeal.
At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted before us that the assessment order was passed based on certain information gathered from the Regional Transport Office and copy of the same was not furnished to the assessee in order to defend his case. Therefore, the order of the Ld.AO was passed behind the back of the assessee without giving an opportunity to defend his case. Hence, it was pleaded that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld. AO for de-nova consideration and also to direct the Ld. AO to furnish a copy of the information gathered from the Regional Transport Authority etc to the assessee in order to defend his case. The Ld. DR could not controvert to the submission of the Ld. AR.
In this regard, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the orders passed by this tribunal in the assessee’s case in & 264/Chny/2018 for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13 and in the HUF case in ITA Nos.
265 & 266/Chny/2018for assessment years 2011-12 & 2012-13, both dated 09.07.2018.
We heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant material. The relevant portion of the order of this tribunal, supra, is extracted as under:
“6. We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. From the facts of the case it appears that the assessee was not provided with the information gathered by the Ld.Revenue Authorities from the Regional Transport Authorities based on which the Ld.AO had made addition in the hands of the assessees which was further confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A). This action of the Ld.Revenue Authorities is not justifiable. When the Ld.Revenue Authorities had made additions on the basis of the information gathered from the Regional Transport Office a copy of the same ought to have been provided to the assessees in order to defend their case. In this situation, we do not have any option but to remit back the matter to the file of Ld.AO for fresh consideration. Accordingly we hereby remit all the appeals of the assessees back to the file of Ld.AO for fresh consideration and further direct the Ld.AO to furnish a copy of the information gathered from the Regional Transport Office to the assessees and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with merit and law affording enough opportunity to the assesses of being heard. The assessees are also hereby directed to co-operate with the proceedings before the Ld.Revenue Authorities failing which the LD.Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate orders in accordance with merit and law based on the materials on record.
In the result all the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes.”
Following the co-ordinate bench decision, supra, we remit the issue back to the AO for a fresh examination on the same lines in which the co-ordinate bench has directed to do, supra.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 27th day of November, 2018 at Chennai.