Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A/SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY
आदेश / O R D E R
PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
These five appeals are filed by the Assessee, aggrieved by the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-12, Chennai,
:-2-: to 3495/Mds/2016 all dated 29.12.2015 for the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07 & 2008-09.
The assessee has raised the following identical grounds in all her appeals.
The order of The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 12, Chennai dated 29.12.2015 in l.T.A.No.41/CIT(A)-12/2003-04 for the above mentioned Assessment Year is contrary to law, facts, and in the circumstances of the case.
2. The CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the assessment of the differential rental quantified by the Assessing Officer in the computation of taxable total income without assigning proper reasons and justification. 3. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the rental income quantified by the Assessing Officer based on Inspector’s Report was wrong, erroneous, unjustified, incorrect and not sustainable in law, thereby vitiating the assessment of the differential, amount quantified. 4. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that non consideration of Ground No.4 forming part of the statutory Form No.35 would vitiate the decision rendered with a view to confirm the assessment order. 5. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that even after reproducing the written submissions filed at various stages of the appellate proceedings, the findings recorded in relation thereto was wholly unjustified and not sustainable in law
:-3-: to 3495/Mds/2016
6. The CIT (Appeals) went wrong in recording the findings in this regard in Page Nos. 10 & 11 of the impugned order without assigning proper reasons and justification.
The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the sustenance of reassessment was not correct and ought to have appreciated that the order of re-assessment vas passed out of time, invalid, passed without jurisdiction and not sustainable both on facts and in law. 8. The CIT (Appeals) failed to appreciate that there was no proper opportunity given before passing of the impugned order and any order passed in violation of the principles natural justice would be nullity in law.
At the outset, the ld. AR submitted before me that the additions for all the assessment years were with respect to undisclosed rental income of assessee. It was further submitted that the ld. assessing officer had not furnished to the assessee the basis in which he had arrived at the rental income of the assessee and the report of the inspector while making such additions. Further it was argued that the rental value was evenly adopted by the ld.A.O with respect to the different properties of the assessee which is erroneous. Ld.A.R further argued stating that the ld. CIT(A) did not give fair opportunity of being heard. With the above submissions, the ld. A.R pleaded that :-4-: to 3495/Mds/2016 the appeals of the assessee may be remitted back to the file of ld. assessing officer in order to frame the assessment by curing all the above mentioned defects.
The ld. DR vehemently argued before me stating that the ld. assessing officer as well as the ld. CIT(A) had provided the assessee with sufficient opportunity of being heard, however, the assessee had not co-operated with the Revenue in their proceedings which might have resulted in the deficiencies cited by the ld. AR. He therefore requested to confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A).
I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials available on record. It appears that the assessee had not furnished the particulars required for the assessment before the ld. assessing officer due to which the ld. assessing officer was forced to complete the assessment based on the materials available on record.
This eluding attitude of the assessee and her ld. AR is not appreciable. However, in the interest of justice I hereby remit the :-5-: to 3495/Mds/2016 entire appeals of the assessee back to the file of ld. assessing officer for de-novo consideration so that the assessments can be reframed in a fair manner. I also caution the assessee and the ld. A.R to promptly appear before the Revenue and furnish all the information required for the assessment promptly in order to expedite their orders failing which the Revenue is at liberty to pass appropriate order in accordance with law and merit.
In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 02nd August,2017 at Chennai.