Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, & SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R
PER GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in 243, 242, 238, 237, 256 & 235/15-16 dated 15.03.2017 for the AYs 2007-08 to 2013-14. against the Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in ITA Nos.99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94 & 93/15-16 dated 15.03.2017 for the AYs 2007-08 to 2013-14 and ITA Nos.1478 to 1482/Mds/2017 are the appeals filed by the Revenue against the common Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Chennai, in ITA Nos. 99, 98, 97, 96, 95, 94 &
ITA Nos.726-732 & 1471-1477/Mds/2017 & 1478-1482/Mds/2017 :- 3 -:
93/15-16 dated 15.03.2017 for the AYs 2007-08 to 2013-14, in which Revenue preferred appeals for the AYs 2007-08, 2010-11 to 2013-14 only.
Mrs.Ruby George, CIT represented on behalf of the Revenue and Mr.K.Ravi, Adv. represented on behalf of the assessee.
As the above set of appeals are interconnected and contained identical issues, all the appeals are disposed of by this common order.
5. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that these appeals were connected to Shri Padham J. Challani in to 725/Mds/2017 which have been disposed of by an order dated 16.08.2017. It was a submission that there was a search in the premises of the assessee on 19.04.2012. It was a submission that a survey preceded the search. It was a submission that as a consequence of the search, notices u/s.153A came to be issued on the assessee and the assessee has filed its return of income. It was a submission that the assessment came to be completed wherein disallowance from the P&L A/c had been made at 10% of the expenses debited to other expenses. It was a submission that no incriminating material had been found against either of the assessees and consequently the assessment made was liable to be annulled. It was a submission that on appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) had partly deleted the additions made. It was a submission that against the deletions, the Revenue is on appeal. It was a further submission that on account of the non-quashing of the ITA Nos.726-732 & 1471-1477/Mds/2017 & 1478-1482/Mds/2017 :- 4 -:
assessment, as there was no incriminating material in the course of the search, the assessee is on appeal. It was a submission that the Ld.CIT(A) has also invoked the provisions u/s.14A. It was a submission that the arguments were identical to the submissions made in the case of Shri Padham J. Challani.
In reply, the Ld.DR also reiterated her arguments as made in the case of Shri Padham J. Challani.
We have considered the rival submissions. On perusal of the Assessment Orders in the present case also shows that there was no cooperation of the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings, which has handicapped the assessment. In the case of Shri Padham J.
Challani in Para No.5 of the order, we have restored the issues to the file of the AO with the following directions:
We have considered the rival submissions. Admittedly, the Assessment Order does not talk of any incriminating material. But, in the penultimate paragraphs of Page-2 of the Assessment Order, the AO talks of the main source of the income of the assessee being mysterious “other source” which has not been explained with evidence. A perusal of the order of the Ld.CIT(A) in Page Nos.12, Para No.4 talks of statement on oath recorded as well as the business practices discovered during the course of the search which have been the basis on which adverse inferences have been drawn as regards the incomes declared for taxation. We are of the view that the non-cooperation by the assessee in the course of the assessment has hampered the assessment completely. This being so, in the interest of natural justice, the assessment is set-aside and restored to the file of the AO for re- adjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity to substantiate his case. All issues are left open before the AO. The AO has to re-do the assessment after bringing on record the incriminating materials, if any, found in the course of the search. The AO is also directed to grant the assessee, the copies of the statements recorded in the course of the search. We are not giving any finding on the issue of the additions made by the Ld.CIT(A) by invoking the provisions of Sec.14A r/w Rule 8D as we have set-aside the assessments and consequently, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) also stands set-aside and the issues are before the AO for re-adjudication after bringing on record the incriminating materials, if any, found in the course of the search.
ITA Nos.726-732 & 1471-1477/Mds/2017 & 1478-1482/Mds/2017 :- 5 -:
Considering the fact that these issues are also part of the group of Shri Padham J. Challani, respectfully following the decision in the case of Shri Padham J. Challani, the issues in these appeals are also set-aside and restored to the file of the AO for re-adjudication on identical directions as given in the case of Shri Padham J. Challani in to 725/Mds/2017 dated 16.08.2017 for the AYs 2007-08 to 2013-14.
In the result, the appeals of the assessee and the appeals of the Revenue are partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on August 17, 2017, at Chennai.