CHENNIAPPA GOUNDER DURAISAMY,ERODE vs. DCIT,CIRCLE-1, , ERODE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 108/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 June 2024AY 2017-18Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi (Judicial Member), Shri Jagadish (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal decided to remit the matter back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to file all supporting evidence. An addition under Section 69A was dismissed as not pressed.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an order confirming an addition related to a land sale. The assessee failed to provide details of the land sale transaction to the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be allowed to produce evidence for a land sale transaction before the Assessing Officer after failing to do so earlier. Whether an addition under Section 69A was pressed by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadish

Hearing: 12.06.2024Pronounced: 14.06.2024

O R D E R

PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18.

2.

At the outset, we note that the case of the assessee was selected for limited scrutiny as detailed in para 1 & 2 of the assessment order. The Assessing Officer asked the details of transaction as detailed in page 4 of the assessment order relating to sale of land. The Assessing Officer clearly held that the assessee could not provide any further details in respect of said sale of land transaction, which is clear from page 4 of the assessment order. The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer in the absence of any evidence supporting the claim of the assessee.

3.

Before us, the ld. AR placed on record paper book containing copy of various sale deeds. The ld. AR submits that the assessee could not file the same before the Assessing Officer and even before the ld. CIT(A) due to the circumstances beyond his control. The assessee, now, collected every details of sale of land transaction filed in the form of paper book and prayed to remand the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication by considering the copy of various sale deeds filed before the Tribunal.

4.

The ld. DR Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT did not dispute the same.

5.

Admittedly, details of sale of land transaction were not available before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A). Therefore, taking into consideration the submissions of the ld. AR and relevant evidences filed in the form of paper book before the Tribunal, we deem it proper to remit the matter back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration and the assessee is directed to file all the evidence in support of his claim for consideration.

6.

The next issue raised in ground No. 4 is relating to the addition made under section 69A of the Act amounting to ₹.3,40,000/- is dismissed as not pressed.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 14th June, 2024 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →