S.MOHAMED LABIER,CHENNAI vs. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD 11(2), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2735/CHNY/2017Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 June 2018AY 2013-144 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer had not applied his mind to the facts regarding the payment of interest to trusts for minor children. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner was correct in finding the assessment order erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue, and in directing a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263. The assessee did not appear for the hearing, and the notice was returned as 'No such person'. The Departmental Representative argued that the Assessing Officer had not properly examined the huge interest paid by the assessee to trusts for the benefit of minor children.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer's assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue due to lack of proper examination of interest payments to trusts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE

For Respondent: Smt. Ruby George, CIT
Hearing: 14.06.2018Pronounced: 19.06.2018

आदेश /O R D E R

PER N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -8, Chennai, dated 13.10.2017, passed under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14.

2.

The notice of hearing was issued to the assessee by RPAD.

The postal authorities returned the notice with an endorsement “No such person”. It is for the assessee to give correct address so as to enable this Tribunal to serve the notice on the assessee. This Tribunal has no machinery to trace out the correct address of the assessee and serve the notice. Therefore, we heard the Ld. Departmental Representative and proceeded to dispose of the appeal on merit.

3.

Smt. Ruby George, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that the assessee has paid huge interest to various trusts.

According to the Ld. D.R., the trusts were apparently constituted for the benefit of three minor children of the assessee, therefore, the interest has to be added in the hands of the assessee. According to the Ld. D.R., the Assessing Officer without examining these facts, has allowed the claim of the assessee. Therefore, the Principal Commissioner found that the Assessing Officer has not examined the matter properly. Hence, according to the Ld. D.R., the order of assessment is prejudicial to the interests of Revenue and also erroneous. Accordingly, the Principal Commissioner in exercise of his administrative power under Section 263 of the Act, set aside the order of assessment and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment.

4.

We heard the submissions of the Ld. D.R. and perused the relevant material available on record. The payment of interest made to various trusts was not examined by the Assessing Officer.

There was not even a reference about the payment of interest to various trusts, which were said to be established for the benefit of three minor children of the assessee. Since the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind and brought on record the actual facts, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the Principal Commissioner has rightly found that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of Revenue.

Therefore, the Assessing Officer has to redo the assessment as directed by the Principal Commissioner in the impugned order.

Accordingly, this Tribunal do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the lower authority and accordingly the same is confirmed.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →