Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ C’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN & SHRI S.JAYARAMAN
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 25 -10-2018 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 25 -10-2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
The Cross appeals filed by the assessee and by the Revenue are directed against an order of the CIT(Appeals)-3, Coimbatore in Appeal No.379/16-17 for the assessment year 2014-15. & 691/chny/18 :- 2 -:
Shri S.Sridhar represented on behalf of the Assessee and Shri Salendra Mamidi represented on behalf the of the Revenue.
Appeal of the Revenue is delayed by 6 days for which a 3. condonation petition has been filed. The learned AO has submitted a Petition dated 22.02.2018 seeking condonation of delay and the AO stated in this petition that the delay of 6 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal is on account of transiting of file from Ooty to Coimbatore and Coimbatore to Ooty. In our opinion, the reasons explained by the AO for filing the appeal belatedly is bonafide.
Accordingly, the delay is condoned.
It was submitted by ld.D.R that two issues had been raised in the Revenue’s appeal. The first one being against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the 50% of the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer in respect of the development expenditure claimed by the assessee. It was a further submission that in respect of 50% of the addition as been confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal in ITA No.369/Chny/2018. It was a submission that the second issue being against the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in admitting the additional evidence in form of an affidavit given by one of the Directors of M/s.Agnus Holdings (P) Ltd on behalf of M/s.Tenshi Assisted Living (P) Ltd., in respect of source of funds disallowed by the ld. Assessing Officer in respect of the purchase of agricultural land. It was a & 691/chny/18 :- 3 -:
submission that Ld.CIT(A) has adjudicated both the issues without granting the ld. Assessing Officer adequate opportunity to rebut the evidences produced before the Ld.CIT(A). It was a submission that in the assessment order, the ld. Assessing Officer has categorically stated that no evidence has been produced to substantiate the claim of expenses and improvement to land and development expenditures as also in respect of the sources for the investment in the land being agricultural land. It was a submission that he had no objection, if the issues are restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re- adjudication.
In reply, ld.A.R vehemently opposed the submissions of ld.D.R for restoring the two issues to the file of ld. Assessing Officer. It was submitted by ld.A.R that assessment order has been passed without considering any of the evidences produced. It was a submission that in the course of assessment, the issue of the carry forward and set off of the business loss of the assessee against the long term capital gains was also not granted. It was a submission that the said carry forward and set off was permitted by the Ld.CIT(A) and no further appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the said allowances. It was a further submission that the ld. Assessing Officer had disbelieved the source for the purchase of the agricultural land to an extent of `15.20 crores received by the assessee from M/s.Agnus & 691/chny/18 :- 4 -:
Holdings (P) Ltd., on behalf of M/s.Tenshi Assisted Living (P) Ltd. It was a submission that in the assessment order, the AO mentioned that the details were not produced before the ld. Assessing Officer. It was a submission that Form 26AS clearly showed the details of M/s.Tenshi Assisted Living (P) Ltd., tax deduction and the PAN, but the ld. Assessing Officer was unwilling to and even today unwilling to grant assessee the benefit of the credit of the TDS. It was a submission that the order of the CIT(Appeals) was liable to be upheld to the extent of relief granted and in respect of 50% disallowance confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A), the same was liable to be deleted.
We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order in the present case clearly shows that the return had been filed on 31.10.2015, notice u/s.142(1) came to be issued on 26.10.2016, 16.11.2016 and 16.12.2016, the assessment order had been passed on 24.12.2016, i.e. less than 10 days of the last notice u/s.142(1) of the Act was issued. The assessee seems to have responded to most of the notices issued u/s.142(1) of the Act.
However, the reply of the assessee has not been found acceptable.
This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in the cross appeals of the assessee as well as the Revenue are restored to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard. Though it is noticed that in the & 691/chny/18 :- 5 -: assessment order, various other issues have also been raised such as the allowance of set off of the business loss against the income from long term capital gains and the same has been allowed by the Ld.CIT(A) as the Revenue is not in appeal on the said issue, the issue has reached finality. The ld. Assessing Officer shall verify the form 26As in respect of TDS in regard to M/s.Tenshi Assisted Living (P) Ltd. and after verification, give credit to the same to the appropriate year to which it relates. In the circumstances, the issue in the appeals of the Revenue and the assessee are restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee and the appeal of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes.