DR.S.DHANABAYAM,ERODE vs. DCIT, COIMBATORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 680/CHNY/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 July 2017AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assesses were not granted an adequate opportunity to substantiate their case, particularly regarding the cross-examination of sellers who admitted to receiving on-money payments. In the interest of natural justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer.

What were the facts?

The assesses, doctors associated with Sudha Hospitals, were subject to search and seizure. Statements were recorded, and assessments were completed quickly without adequate opportunity for the assesses to present their case. Additions were made regarding on-money payments for immovable properties.

What were the issues?

Whether the assesses were provided with adequate opportunity to present their case and cross-examine witnesses before additions were made based on search and seizure operations.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 133A,Section 131(1A)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY

Hearing: 13.07.2017Pronounced: 13.07.2017

Heard together (4 matters)

ITA No.679/Mds/2016
ITA No.680/Mds/2016
ITA No.681/Mds/2016
ITA No.682/Mds/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

आदेश / O R D E R

PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

These are the appeals filed by the assesses against the Order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai, in dated 11.01.2016, ITA No.535/14-15 dated 11.01.2016, ITA No.447/14- 15 dated 11.01.2016 & ITA No.536/14-15 dated 11.01.2016 in the case of Dr.D.Kandaswami, Dr.S.Dhanabagyam, Dr.K.Sudhakar & Dr.S.Pradeepa respectively for the AY 2012-13.

2.

Shri Sailendra Mamidi, CIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri A.S.Sriraman, Adv., represented on behalf of the assessee.

3.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that there was a search and seizure u/s.132 and survey u/s.133A in the case of M/s.Sudha Hospitals. The to 682/Mds/2016 :- 3 -:

assesses are Doctors associated with the said hospital. It was a submission that statements u/s.132(4) and also u/s.131(1A) were recorded. It was a submission that the statements were recorded on 10.01.2014 and notice for assessment served on 16.01.2014 and the assessment had been completed on 31.01.2014. It was a submission that the assessee had not been granted adequate opportunity to substantiate his case. It is a prayer that the issues in these appeals may be restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity.

4.

In reply, the Ld.DR vehemently supported the orders of the AO and the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the Assessment Order shows that the addition have been made in respect of the on money payments in regard to certain immovable properties. The sellers of the immovable property also accepted the receipt of the earned money. However, opportunity of cross-examination has not been granted to the assessee. This being so, in the interest of natural justice, the issues in these appeals are restored to the file of the AO for re- adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate his case. to 682/Mds/2016 :- 4 -:

6.

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on July 13, 2017, at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →