Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH : CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE]
आदेश / O R D E R
In this appeal filed by the assessee, which is directed against an order dated 18.08.2017 of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Chennai, it has raised the following grounds :-
The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax
ITA No. 2363/Mds/2017. :- 2 -:
(Appeals)-5, Chennai, is wrong, illegal and is opposed to law and facts of the case. 2.The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered that reopening of appellant's case u/s. 147 was bad in law. The assessment of a reopened case was completed without issue of notice u/s.143(2), also the assessment was completed u/s.143(3) and not u/s. 143(3) read with section 147. 3.The observation of the learned CIT(A in para 1 of Page 4 under "Decision") to the effect that the appellant has not filed any written submission, is factually incorrect. The appellant has actually filed a written submission along with enclosures (vide acknowledgement filed). 4.The learned CIT CA) erred in confirming the additions made by assessing officer amounting to Rs. 8,55,000/--, treating the same as unexplained investments u/s 69, on the basis of information passed on by the Investigation Wing without going into merits of the case and without taking into account the written submissions filed.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that he was not particular about the ground assailing the reopening done for the impugned assessment year. However, according to him, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) confirmed the addition of Rs.8,55,000/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘’the Act’’) without going to the merits of the case. As per the ld. Authorised Representative, assessee could not appear before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) but it had filed written submissions. Contention of the ld. Authorised Representative was that such written submissions were not taken into account while disposing the appeal. In support of this, he placed
ITA No. 2363/Mds/2017. :- 3 -: reliance on written submissions dated 11.07.2017 filed before the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).
Per contra, ld. Departmental Representative strongly supporting the orders of the lower authorities submitted that ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), had decided the issue on merits and there was no reason why assessee should be given one more opportunity.
We have considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is true that despite four notices issued by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) nobody had entered appearance on behalf of the assessee. However, assessee had filed submissions in support of his case on 11.07.2017 and seal of the office of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) acknowledging receipt of such submissions is available on record.
However, ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had gone ahead with the adjudication of the appeal based on a premise that no written submissions were filed by the assessee. Considering this, I am of the opinion that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has to reconsider the appeal. I set aside the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and remit the appeal back to the file of the ITA No. 2363/Mds/2017. :- 4 -: ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for consideration afresh in accordance with law. Assessee shall be given due opportunity to represent his case.
In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 19th day of December, 2017, at Chennai.