DINESH MEHTA,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CHENNAI

These are the appeals filed by the assessee against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals (Central)-I, Chennai, in Appeal Nos.75/2012-13 dated 24.06.2014 for the AY 2000-01, No.76/2012-13 dated 24.06.2014 for the AY 2001-02, No.77/2012-13 dated 24.06.2014 to 2424/Mds/2014 :- 2 -: for the AY 2002-03, No.78/2012-13 dated 24.06.2014 for the AY 2003-04, No.79/2012-13 dated 24.06.2014 for the AY 2004-05, No.80/2012-13 dated 24.06.2014 for the AY 2005-06 & No.81/2012-13 dated 24.06.2014 for the AY 2006-07.

Shri B.Naveen Kumar, JCIT, represented on behalf of the Revenue and Shri B.Ramana Kumar, FCA & Adv. represented on behalf of the assessee.

It was submitted by the Ld.AR that the AO while completing the assessment giving effect to the order of the Tribunal had not provided adequate opportunity to the assessee. It was a submission that the AO in some of the years treated the purchases of the assessee as unaccounted purchases and the turnover as unaccounted profits. It was also submitted that when computing the interest u/s.234B, the AO has not taken into consideration the taxes paid by the assessee for the various assessment years. It was a further submission that the AO has also not considered the fact that the assessee was a whole-sale dealer and was having credit facility. It was a submission that before the Ld.CIT(A) the assessee was not represented by any Counsel but the assessee himself had appeared and had filed a letter dated 11.06.2014 to the Ld.CIT(A) wherein the assessee had attempted to explain his ill-health and frustration in regard to the assessment. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that he has co-related all the evidences in respect of the additions as made in the assessment to 2424/Mds/2014 :- 3 -:

In reply, the Ld.DR submitted that the original assessment had resulted in the total income of the assessee being assessed at more than Rs.125 Cr. It was a submission that after set-aside by the ITAT of the original assessment orders to the file of the AO, the total income of the assessee now was assessed at nearly Rs.18.5 Cr. It was a submission that the assessee has already got adequate relief. It was a submission that the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) was liable to be upheld.

We have considered the rival submissions. The fact that the total income of the assessee for the AYs 2000-01 to 2006-07 has come down from Rs.125 Cr. to Rs.18.5 Cr. on the basis of the mere evidences which have been produced before the AO itself given ground to grant the assessee one more opportunity to produce further evidences, if any, before the AO. The fact that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the assessee’s appeals on the basis of the letter filed by the assessee dated 11.06.2014, reading of which clearly shows the frustration of the assessee on account of his ill-health and predicament also gives reason that the issues in the appeal must be restored to the file of the AO. Not only this, the fact that the total purchase of the assessee has been treated/added as unaccounted expenditure, and also total turnover of the assessee as to 2424/Mds/2014 :- 4 -:

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee for the AYs 2000-01 to 2006-07 are partly allowed for statistical purposes.