ACIT NCC 7(1), CHENNAI vs. MS. PREMA HARIHARAN, CHENNAI

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 7, Chennai dated 27.02.2018 relevant to the assessment year 2014-15. The only effective ground raised in the appeal of the Revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition mad on account of increased capital as unexplained credit for ₹.1,13,29,089/- and ₹.15,08,119/- as disallowance under section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” in short] without relying on any corroborative evidence.

The appeal filed by the Revenue is delayed by 14 days, for which, the Revenue has filed petition for condonation of the delay, to which; the ld. Counsel for the assessee has not raised any serious objection. Consequently, the delay of 14 days in filing of the appeal stands condoned and the appeal is admitted for adjudication.

The assessee is an individual and derives income from the sources viz., rental income and investment in securities and projects. The assessee filed her return of income on 25.08.2015 for the assessment year 2014-15 admitting a total income of ₹.23,51,260/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS on account of sales turnover mismatch and increasing capital. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act by adding back the difference in capital between year ending 31.03.2013 and 31.03.2014 of ₹.1,51,88,468/- and assessed the same as total income of the assessee.

The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). By considering various written submissions of the assessee and other evidences, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee.

Aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal. The ld. DR has submitted that by considering various evidences, the ld. CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee is in violation of Rule 46A and pleaded that the issue may be remitted to the file of the Assessing Officer for verification of the details filed before the ld. CIT(A) and decide the issue afresh. On the other hand, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has strongly supported the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and prayed for its confirmation.

We have heard both sides, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of authorities below. During the course of assessment proceedings, after considering various explanations and the materials available on record, the Assessing Officer made various additions and are subject matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The assessee furnished the detailed computation of taxable computation for the assessment year 2012-13 along with copy of ITR-V acknowledgement proof of tax payment, letters evidencing investment in second redeemable non- convertible debentures, dividend receipt evidence in the form of bank statement from HDFC Bank from 01.04.2012 to 03.04.2013 as well as REC certificate evidencing investment in bonds before the ld. CIT(A) and by considering the above evidences, the ld. CIT(A) held that the additions are unwarranted and allowed the appeal of the assessee without obtaining any remand report, which is, in violation of Rule 46A. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remit the entire issues to the file of Assessing Officer to examine and verify the evidences as was filed before the ld. CIT(A) and decide the issues afresh in accordance with law by allowing an opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the grounds raised by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on the 31st October, 2018 at Chennai.