ISHITA SHAMPA DATTA,CHENNAI vs. ITO N C WARD 16(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 863/CHNY/2018Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 October 2018AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee had not produced evidence before the Assessing Officer, but fresh evidence was presented before the Tribunal. In the interest of natural justice, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for re-adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an addition made by the Assessing Officer based on bank account transactions. The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to produce evidence before the Assessing Officer despite opportunities.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer was justified in making additions without proper evidence from the assessee, and if fresh evidence presented before the Tribunal warrants a remand.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘ A’ SMC BENCH : CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN

For Respondent: Mr. B.Sagadevan, JCIT, D.R

आदेश / O R D E R

1.

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-4,Chennai in ITA No.205/2016-17/A.Y2014-15/CIT(A)-4 dated 26.10.2017 for the assessment year 2014-15.

2.

Mr.Gopichand represented on behalf of the Assessee, and Mr. B.Sagadevan represented on behalf of the Revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld.A.R that in the course of assessment, the ld. Assessing Officer had added all the transactions as appeared in the bank accounts of the assessee. It was a submission that the addition was not called for.

4.

In reply, the ld.D.R submitted that the assessee had not produced evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer. Further, the ld.D.R submitted that sufficient opportunity had been given to the assessee, but the assessee had not produced any evidences before the Assessing Officer.

5.

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the assessment order shows that the assessee has not produced evidences before the ld. Assessing Officer as called for by the ld. Assessing Officer. I am of the view that the evidences produced before the Tribunal, are in fact fresh evidences. This being so, in the interest of natural justice, I am of the view that the issues in this appeal is liable to be restored to the file of ld. Assessing Officer for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate her case and I do so.

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

Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on 23rd October, 2018, at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →