K.PRASANNA RAGHAVENDRAN,CHENNAI vs. DCIT, TRICHY

PDF · subscribers
ITA 283/CHNY/2014Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 February 2015AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal, finding that the additions were made due to non-production of evidence, decided to grant the assessee one more opportunity to present necessary materials before the AO. The AO was directed to re-decide the issue after considering the evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a proprietor of an interior decoration business, had income additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) for unexplained cash credit, non-deduction of TDS, and long-term capital gain. The assessee failed to provide evidence before the AO and the CIT(Appeals), who confirmed the additions.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee should be given another opportunity to produce evidence for additions made by the AO when such evidence was not provided earlier.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, CHENNAI

Before: SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY & SHRI V. DURGA RAO

For Respondent: Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT
Hearing: 24.02.2015Pronounced: 27.02.2015

आदेश /O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

1.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Trichy, dated 29.11.2013 relevant to the assessment year 2008-09.

2.

Facts in brief are that the assessee is a proprietor of M/s Karvin Interiors doing interior decorations on contract basis. The assessee had filed a return of income for the assessment year under consideration, on 30.09.2008 by declaring a total income of ` 7,45,840/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny and after due process, the A.O. has completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act'). In the assessment order, the A.O. made an addition of ` 11,55,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act and an addition of ` 5,01,577/- on account of non-deduction of TDS and an amount of ` 30,11,373/- on account of long term capital gain. Before the A.O. the assessee has not filed any evidence. Therefore the A.O. assessed the total income of the assessee at ` 54,13,770/-.

2. Assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. CIT(Appeals) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer.

3.

On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter before the Tribunal. At the time of hearing, the Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that all the details are available in respect of the additions made by the A.O. Hence, one more opportunity may be given to the assessee to produce the same before the A.O.

4.

On the other hand, the Ld. D.R. strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.

5.

We have heard both sides and perused the records and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The additions were made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) on account of non-production of necessary evidence before the authorities below. We find that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to defend his case by producing all the necessary materials. Under these circumstances, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals). We direct the assessee to produce all the necessary evidence before the A.O.

On production of evidence, the A.O. is directed to decide the issue afresh in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on Friday, the 27th of February, 2015 at Chennai.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →