DURAIRAJ NEHRU EDWINRAJ,CHENNAI vs. ITO, CHENNAI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal, finding the assessee's submissions unconvincing and lacking evidence even at the appellate stage, decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision. The assessee was given one last opportunity to present evidence and cooperate with the authorities.
What were the facts?
The assessee appealed against the disallowance of expenditure and the treatment of interest income. The assessee claimed to have provided bills and vouchers, but the revenue authorities stated they were not produced.
What were the issues?
Whether the expenditure claimed by the assessee was duly supported by evidence, and whether the interest income was correctly disclosed in the return of income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ ‘D’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony
आदेश / O R D E R
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals (Central)-1, Chennai dated 24.03.2014 in for the assessment year 2008-09 passed u/s.250(6) r.w.s.143(3)
& 147 of the Act.
The assessee has raised two grounds in his appeal and the concise ground is reframed herein below for adjudication:- i. The Ld.CIT(A) as well as the Ld.AO has erred in disallowing
the claim of expenditure of Rs.30,24,681/-. ii. The Ld.CIT(A) as well as the Ld.AO has erred in treating the interest income of Rs.17,445/- as not disclosed.
At the outset the Ld.AR submitted that though the assessee had furnished all the bills and vouchers with respect to the expenditure incurred, the Revenue authorities held that they were not produced before them for verification which is incorrect. He further submitted that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.AO in order to verify the expenditure incurred with evidence. The Ld.AR further submitted that the assessee had disclosed the interest income earned by him correctly in the return and the Ld.AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) erred in concluding that there were short disclosure of interest amounting to Rs.17,445/-. Hence it was prayed that the matter may be remitted back to the file of Ld.AO for verifying the same. The Ld.DR on the other hand argued in support of the orders of the Ld.AO as well as the Ld.CIT(A) and requested for dismissing the appeal of the assessee.
I have heard the rival submissions and carefully perused the materials on records. Considering the facts and circumstance of the case, I do not find the submission of the Ld.AR convincing. Even at this stage before me, the details of the bills and 3 vouchers and other particulars are not presented for verification. Therefore it appears that it is a lame excuse steered the Ld.AR / assessee in order to gain time. However, in the interest of justice, I hereby remit the matter back to the file of Ld.AO to decide both the issues raised in the appeal afresh there by giving one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. I also caution the assessee and his AR to promptly co-operate before the Revenue authorities in order to complete their proceedings failing which the Revenue authorities shall be at liberty to pass appropriate order on merits and law, based on the facts and material available on record. I also direct the Ld. Revenue authorities to accept any evidences brought before them even for the first time and thereafter examining the same consider the case of the assessee as directed herein above.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on the 13th June, 2017.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- Tankala Soumya vs. Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, CT And GST, Rayagada Circle, RayagadaOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Pooja, Town Hallroad, Cuttack vs. State Tax Officer, Cuttack-I West Circle,CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Chicvogue Fashions Lip, Ganjam vs. State Tax Officer Bhubaneswar- Ii CircleOrissa · 31 Oct 2026
- M/S Priya, Townhall Road, Cuttack vs. Superintendent Cuttack- I Range, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026