L.ARUNACHALAM, CHENNAI v. ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-15(1), CHENNAI

ITA 81/CHNY/2020 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 10-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 8121714 RSA 2020
Assessee PAN ADWPA9208M
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 81/CHNY/2020
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
Appellant L.ARUNACHALAM, CHENNAI
Respondent ITO NON CORPORATE WARD-15(1), CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 10-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 10-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 25-11-2020
First Hearing Date 25-11-2020
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 13-01-2020
Judgment Text
/ DATE OF HEARING : 2 8 - 01 - 2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 - 0 3 - 2021 / O R D E R PER DUVVURU R.L.REDDY JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-15 CHENNAI IN ITA NO.259/ CIT(A)-15/2018-19 DATED 31.10.2019 FOR THE AY 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) - 15 CHENNAI DATED 31.10.2019 IN I.T.A.NO.259/CIT(A)-15/18-19 FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CONTRARY TO LAW FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER EXP ARTE WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECI ATED THAT ANY ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE SHOU LD BE RECKONED AS NULLITY IN LAW. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: CHENNAI . . . BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. AY APPELLANT RESPONDENT 81/CHNY/2020 2011-12 SHRI L. ARUNACHALAM NO.21/3 OLD NO.43A 2 ND AVENUE INDIRA NAGAR ADYAR CHENNAI-600 020. ( PAN: ADWPA 9208 M ) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER NON-CORPORATE WARD-15(1) CHENNAI. / APPELLANT BY : MR.S.SRIDHAR ADV. / RESPONDENT BY : MR.SURESH PERIASAMY JCIT ITA NO.81/C/2020 :: 2 :: 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITI ON OF RS.1 13 65 465/- BEING THE CASH DEPOSITED INTO BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIF ICATION AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE LACK OF OPPORTUNITY AS WELL AS ABSENCE OF REASONS FOR CONFIRMING THE SAID ADDITION WOULD DEFY THE PROVISI ONS IN 250(6) OF THE ACT. 4. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE IMPROPER ANALYSIS OF BANK STATEMENT AND LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE SO URCE FOR CASH DEPOSITS WOULD VITIATE THE WRONG ADDITION MADE IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE TOTAL INCOME. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN A NY EVENT TAXING THE ENTIRE CREDITS WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE WITHDRAWALS AS SOURCE FOR SUC H DEPOSITS IS WRONG ERRONEOUS AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIA TED THAT THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE PARTNERSHIP FIRMS WOULD C ONSTITUTE THE SOURCE FOR CASH DEPOSITS THEREBY VITIATING THE SUSTENANCE OF THE WR ONG ADDITION. 6. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT IN A NY EVENT THE SUSTENANCE OF THE EXPARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 144 R.W.S 147 OF THE A CT ON VARIOUS GROUNDS WAS WRONG ERRONEOUS UNJUSTIFIED INCORRECT AND NOT SU STAINABLE IN LAW AND OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ENTIRE COMPUTATION OF TAX ABLE TOTAL INCOME FORMING PART OF THE EXPARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS INCORRECT AND E RRONEOUS IN VIEW OF THE NON- CONSIDERATION OF RELEVANT MATERIALS. 7. THE CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ORDER OF REASSESSMENT WAS PASSED OUT OF TIME INVALID PASSED WITHOUT JURISDI CTION AND NOT SUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GR OUNDS/ARGUMENTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE AY 2 011-12 MANUALLY ON 26.03.2013 ADMITTING AN INCOME OF RS.3 00 000/-. S INCE THE INVESTIGATION WING HAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS GETTING CREDI TED IN THE FORM OF CASH DEPOSITS (TRANSFER FROM INDIVIDUALS AND PAN LINKED ACCOUNT) WHEREAS THE DEBITS WERE IN THE FORM OF FOREIGN OUTWARD REMITTAN CE CASH PAID SELF AND TRANSFER TO PURCHASE OF GOLD COINS. THE CASE WAS R EOPENED U/S.147 OF THE IT ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S.148. AGAIN NOTICE U/S .142(1) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE CALLING FOR CERTAIN INFORMATION IN CONNECT ION WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME I N RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S.148 ON 08.12.2018 ADMITTING INCOME OF RS.3 09 0 88/-. NOTICE U/S.143(2) WAS DULY ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESS EE. WHEN THE CASE ITA NO.81/C/2020 :: 3 :: WAS POSTED FOR HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE COMMUNICATIONS AND STA TUTORY NOTICES THE AO ISSUED A SHOW CAUSE LETTER ON 18.12.2018 POSTING THE CASE FOR HEARING ON 21.12.2018. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY REPLY TO THE ABOVE SHOW CAUSE LETTER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FU RNISH ANY DETAILS BEFORE THE AO THE AO HAS PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE PROCEE DINGS TO THE BEST OF THE JUDGMENT U/S.144 R.W.S.147 OF THE IT ACT ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCES GATHERED AND AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE DEPARTMENT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSITS IN ALL HIS BANK ACCOUNTS TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 13 65 465/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE SAID AMOUNT W AS BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 4. ON APPEAL SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS TOWARDS THE CASH DEPOSITS THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDI TION. 5. ON BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRONEOUSLY PASSED THE EXPARTE ORDER WITHOUT ISSUIN G ANY NOTICE U/S.250(1) OF THE ACT BY FIXING THE APPEAL FOR HEARING OR CALL ED FOR ANY DETAILS. THUS THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS LIABLE TO B E SET ASIDE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD.DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AT ALL COOPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT ST AGE OR APPELLATE STAGE BY FURNISHING DETAILS WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSIT O F RS.1 13 65 465/-. ITA NO.81/C/2020 :: 4 :: 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES PERUSED THE MATE RIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES B ELOW. 7. ON PERUSAL OF THE APPELLATE ORDER WE FIND THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT ISSUED ANY NOTICE FIXING THE APPEAL FOR HEARING OR CALLED FOR ANY DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CONCLUDING THE APPELLATE ORDER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND DIRECT HIM TO AFFORD ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT FAILING WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.144 R.W.S.147 OF THE ACT STANDS CO NFIRMED. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 10 TH DAY OF MARCH 2021 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( G. MANJUNATHA ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . ) (DUVVURU R.L. REDDY) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI /DATED: 10 TH MARCH 2021. TLN /COPY TO: 1. /APPELLANT 4. /CIT 2. /RESPONDENT 5. /DR 3. ( ) /CIT(A) 6. ! /GF