Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, C/“SMC” BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
आदेश / O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal is filed by the Assessee, aggrieved by the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)-16, Chennai dated 29.02.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2007-08.
The grievance of the assessee is that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not considering the submissions and explanation made towards source for the investment made by Mr.A.R.Chowdary on behalf of the assessee.
2.1. At the time of hearing, the assessee filed additional grounds as follows:-
Ground No.4 : For that the assessment is void, since no notice u/s.148 and no assessment u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T.Act can be issued or passed in the facts and circumstances of the case.
2.2. The assessee filed a petition for admission of additional ground wherein submitted that failure to raise the above ground was due to inadvertence and the omission is not intentional and prayed to admit the additional ground.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record and also gone through the additional ground. In our opinion, the reason advanced by the assessee for not raising this ground at the earlier stage is bona fide and accordingly, placing reliance on the judgment of Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (229 ITR 283), wherein it was held that a legal ground can be raised at any stage of appeal. Hence, we admit the additional ground for adjudication.
The facts of the case are that the assessee is a salaried employee working abroad. The assessee had invested an amount of `80,67,840/- from assessment year 2008-09 to 2011-12 towards purchase of land and construction of apartment at Madinaguda. A search and seizure operations were conducted in the residential premises of G.R.Ravindra Reddy Hyderabad on 20.10.2010 as a part of search operation in the case of SR Hatcheries Group. The papers relating to investment made at Madinaguda were found where assessee along with 20 other parties had invested in this land and also constructed a residential apartment on that land. Subsequently, the case of the assessee for assessment year 2007-08 was reopened by isuse of notice u/s.148 of the Ac as assessee bing one of the investors in the land at Madinaguda. Furhter notice u/s.143(2) was isused and asked to furnish the details of investment in the land at Madinaguda at 20.10.2010. In response, the assessee submitted that the total investment was made in the span of thee years amounting to `80,67,840/-. Year wise investment made from assessee’s own funds and investment made on behalf of assessee is mentioned in the below table:
Investment made from assessee’s F.Y Towards Towards own fund/on behalf of assessee land construction
G R Ravinder Reddy 2007-08 26,67,840 7,00,000 Assessee’s own Savings 2007-08 7,00,000 -- A R Chowdary (HUF) 2008-09 -- 10,00,000 G.R Ravinder Reddy 2009-10 -- 20,00,000 Assessee ‘s own savings 2009-10 -- 5,00,000
Assessee ‘s own savings 2010-11 -- 5,00,000 Total 33,67,840 47,00,000 4.1 Confirmation letters from G R Ravinder Reddy and A R Chowdary (HUF) towards investment made on behalf of assessee were submitted along with documentary evidences during the assessment proceedings. Subsequently, the assessment order u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Act was passed on 28th March, 2013 and served on the assessee with a demand notice of ` 6,10,309/-. The said demand has raised only on account of addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer amounting to `10/- lakhs towards non-acceptance of investment made by A R Chowdary on behalf of assessee which was treated as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee which was treated as undisclosed income in the hands of the assessee.
4.2 Aggrieved, the assessee carried the appeal to the Ld.CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the ld. Assessing Officer. Since the additional ground was first time raised before the Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.CIT(A) has not gone through the additional ground, therefore, the assessee filed this appeal against the order of Ld.CIT(A) before Tribunal.
We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, it is appropriate to remit the additional ground raised by the assessee to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for adjudication. Since we remit the additional ground raised by the assessee to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for his consideration, we at this stage refrain from going into merits of other grounds raised by the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 09th January, 2017 at Chennai.