What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that a previous order for assessment year 1994-95 had remanded the matter to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the issue after reviewing documents with CBI and DRI, providing the assessee a fair opportunity.

The assessee filed appeals against the common order of the CIT(A) for assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96, and 1996-97. The appeals involved quantum additions and penalties.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of additions made by the Assessing Officer based on the assessee's failure to produce certain documents, which the assessee claimed were with investigative agencies.

Krishnasamy Sai Jagannathan vs ACIT | ITAT Chennai 2024

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

Hearing: 27.08.2024Pronounced: 28.08.2024

O R D E R PER BENCH: All these appeals consisting of quantum addition as well as penalty filed by the assessee are directed against the common order dated 31.08.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai for the assessment years 1993-94, 1995-96 and 1996-97.

Since the issue raised in the appeals are similar based on the same identical facts, with the consent of the both the parties, we proceed to 2 hear all these appeals together and pass consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

At the outset, we note that this Tribunal, in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 1994-95 in remanded the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration vide consolidated order dated 20.07.2004, which is placed on record at page 11 of the paper book. On perusal of the same, we find that the ITAT Chennai Bench discussed the issue in detail in para 3 and directed the Assessing Officer to re-examine the whole issue afresh after examining the entire documents stated to be available with CBI and DRI by giving a fair and reasonable opportunity to the assessee. The relevant part at para 3 is reproduced herein below: We have heard rival submissions and also perused the material placed before us. Admittedly, the lower authorities made the addition only on the ground that the assessee had not filed any material to show that the advance was given by MVR group of companies in the course of business. The case of the assessee is that the materials are available with CBI & DRI. Therefore, they cannot be produced. Now, the learned counsel for the assessee produced a Xerox copy of extracts from

KRISHNASAMY SAI JAGANNATHAN,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CNETRAL CIRCLE-1(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments