Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN & SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R
Per A. Mohan Alankamony, AM:-
This appeal by the Revenue and cross objection by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the learned
CO No.4/Chny/2018 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-9, Chennai, dated 24.07.2017 in for the assessment year 2006-07 passed U/s.250(6) r.w.s. 144 of the Act.
2.1 Revenue’s Appeal:-
The Revenue has raised the following grounds in its appeal:-
The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the law and facts of the case.
2.1. The CIT(A) erred in considering and allowing the written submission of the assessee despite the non compliance at the assessment stage resulting in ex-parte assessment proceedings.
2.2. The CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts that transaction details enclosed along with written submission with regard to unsecured loans, was neither submitted before the AD resulting in clear violation of the mandate given in Rule 46A.
2.3. The CIT(A) erred in directing the AO to verify the new evidence filed by the assessee without giving any categorical findings and forcing the AO to redo the assessment after the lapse of 9 years.
3. For these and other grounds that may be adduced at the time of hearing, it is prayed that the Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.
2.2 Assessee’s Cross Objection:-
The assessee in its Cross Objection has raised the following grounds:-
CO No.4/Chny/2018 1. The giving effect order of the Assessing Officer/CIT(A) is erroneous, is contrary to law and opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case.
The impugned giving effect order u/s 250 rws 143(3), issued by the O, dated 23/11/2017, is opposed to the facts and circumstances of the case and contrary to law and the principles of natural justice
3. The Assessing Officer/CIT(A) erred in stating that the sources of two amounts are not clearly established, when the Appellant has already submitted details regarding the same.
4. The Assessing Officer/CIT(A) ought to have given the Appellant an opportunity to be heard with regard to the amounts being treated as income from other sources.
5. Without prejudice to the above, the AO/CIT(A) failed to consider that the Assessee had a loss from business of Rs.56,64,319/- during AY 2006- 07..
6. The AO/CIT(A) ought to have adjusted any income determined against the loss made from business, when determined the Assessed Income; and hence there would be no tax payable as the Assessable income would be NIL.
The levy of interest u/s 234 is wholly arbitrary and bad in law, rendering it liable to be quashed.
Any other ground that may be raised at the time of personal hearing.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of manufacturing breads, buns and all other bakery products, filed its return of income for the assessment year 2006-07 on 30.11.2006 admitting ‘Nil’ income. The case was selected for scrutiny and notice was issued on 24.10.2007. However since the assessee did not co-
CO No.4/Chny/2018 operate in the assessment proceedings the Ld.AO passed order U/s.144 of the Act on 04.12.2008 wherein he disallowed the claim of loss of Rs.60,47,848/- and finally assessed the undisclosed income of the assessee U/s.68 of the Act for Rs.78,38,500/-. On appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) remitted back the matter to the file of Ld.AO and further directed the assessee to furnish all the details produced before him for the first time.
At the outset we do not find any serious infirmity in the order of the Ld.CIT(A) because he has only remitted back the matter to the file of Ld.AO directing the Ld.AO to verify the details submitted by the assessee before him for the first time and thereafter pass appropriate order in accordance with merit and law.
Though we do not find any error in the Order of the Ld.CIT(A) in the interest of justice, we hereby further modify the order of the Ld.CIT(A) by directing the Ld.AO to pass appropriate order on merits and law admitting any fresh evidence produced by the assessee before him even other that any evidence produced before the Ld.CIT(A) for the first time. We also make it clear that if the assessee do not co-operate with the Revenue in its proceedings then the Ld.Revenue Authorities shall be at liberty to CO No.4/Chny/2018 pass appropriate order on merit and law based on the materials available on record.
Since we have remitted back the matter to the file of Ld.AO for de-nova consideration and also directed the Ld.AO to admit any fresh evidence submitted before him, the cross objection of the assessee has become infructuous.
In the result appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above and the Cross Objection of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced on the 11th April, 2018 at Chennai.