Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R
Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-
The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai, dated 22.01.2018 in for the assessment year 2014-15 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act.
SP No.151/Chny/2018 The assessee has also filed a stay petition in SP No.151 of 2018 seeking stay of the outstanding demand of Rs.20,81,380/- for the relevant assessment year.
The assessee has raised several grounds in his appeal however the crux of the issue is that the Ld.CIT(A) has erred by partly sustaining the addition made by the Ld.AO towards unexplained credits.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual filed his return of income for the assessment year 2014-15 electronically on 16.08.2014 admitting total income of Rs.7,19,060/-.
The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice U/s.143(2) of the Act was issued on 28.08.2015. Finally the assessment was completed U/s.143(3) of the Act on 16.12.2016 wherein the Ld.AO made addition of Rs.56,41,916/- towards unexplained credit in the bank accounts of the assessee. Thereafter on appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) gave part relief to the assessee.
At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that the Ld.AO had gathered information from the bank accounts of the assessee and worked out
SP No.151/Chny/2018 the disallowance without examining the explanations offered by the assessee. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee has now maintained his books of accounts and in possession all the relevant documents to support his claim. He therefore further pleaded that one opportunity may be provided before the Ld.CIT(A) so that the assessee may be in a position to explain the credits in his bank account and the relevant expenditures incurred for earning such income. He further pleaded that the assessee is an insurance agent having mean resources and the demand raised by the Revenue is too harsh on him which will bring irreparable loss. The Ld.DR on the other hand stoutly opposed to the submission of the LD.AR and argued in support of the order of the Ld.CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on record. From the facts of the case it is evident that the assessee had not produced his books of accounts before the Ld.Revenue Authorities in order to explain the credits in his bank account and the relevant expenditure pertaining to those incomes.
Since the Ld.AR claims that the assessee is now in possession of the relevant materials, vouchers and books of accounts establishing the genuineness of his claim and considering the precarious financial
SP No.151/Chny/2018 situation of the assessee, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) with directions to admit any fresh evidence produce before him by the assessee and thereafter obtaining a Remand Report from the Ld.AO and pass appropriate order in accordance with merit and law. We also caution the assessee and his counsel to promptly cooperate before the Ld.Revenue Authorities in their proceedings, failing which the Ld.Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with merit and law based on the materials on record.
Since we have remitted the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for de-nova consideration, we do not find it necessary to entertain the stay petition filed by the assessee.
In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above and the stay petition of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on the 31st May, 2018 at Chennai.