D.SIVAKUMAR,CHENNAI vs. INCOMETAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-3(3), CHENNAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 387/CHNY/2024Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 June 2024AY 2016-17Bench: HON’BLE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM AND HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue of the Rs. 8.07 Lacs addition back to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to substantiate the loan with tenable evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed an addition of Rs. 12.07 Lacs made by the AO for a loan, as the assessee could not furnish supporting evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed a balance addition of Rs. 8.07 Lacs after allowing partial relief.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee discharged the onus to prove the genuineness of the loan and whether a fresh opportunity for adjudication is warranted.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “A” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: HON’BLE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & HON’BLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM

O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal (Accountant Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2016- 17 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 01-12-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act on 17-03-2022. The registry has noted delay of 15 days in the appeal, which stand condoned. At the time of hearing, none appeared for assessee but the assessee sought adjournment which was rejected due to the fact that the assessee has failed to make effective representation before lower authorities.

2.

In the assessment order, Ld. AO made addition of Rs.12.07 Lacs being loan taken from one Shri S. Thangarajan since the assessee could not furnish any tenable evidence in support of the same. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed partial relief of Rs.4 Lacs and confirmed the balance addition since the assessee could not substantiate the same. Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us.

3.

We are of the opinion that the onus was on assessee to prove the genuineness of the aforesaid loan. Keeping in mind the principle of natural justice, we deem it fit to grant another opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, the issue of addition of Rs.8.07 Lacs stand restored back to the file of Ld. AO for fresh adjudication with a direction to the assessee to substantiate the same.

4.

The appeal stand allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 03rd June. 2024. (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) "ाियक सद! / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे3ई Chennai; िदनांक Dated : 03-06-2024 DS आदेशकीZितिलिपअ&ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ"/Appellant 2. " थ"/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु</CIT Chennai 4. िवभागीय"ितिनिध/DR 5. गाडAफाईल/GF

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →