Nna Azeez v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle II(1),Chennai
[Citation -2016-LL-0923-226]

Citation 2016-LL-0923-226
Appellant Name Nna Azeez
Respondent Name Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle II(1),Chennai
Court ITAT-Chennai
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 23/09/2016
Assessment Year 1997-98, 1998-99, 1999-00, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags revenue authorities • additional ground • seized material • legal heir
Bot Summary: AR Date of Hearing : 19-09-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23-09-2016 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER All these appeals are filed by the assessee are directed against the different orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)(C)-II, Chennai, dated 29.05.2014. The assessee raised the additional grounds stating that the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order without bringing legal heir on record. Considering the plea of the assessee, in the interest of justice, we remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to bring the legal heir of the deceased person i.e the assessee, on record and the Ld.CIT(A) give a fair opportunity of hearing to the legal heir, then decide the issue in accordance with law. Further, the assessee primarily objected before us that the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) have been passed in these cases without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee and Ld.CIT(A) has based his conclusion only on written submissions filed by the assessee. D.R, ample opportunity has been given to the assessee, but assessee failed to make use of the opportunity given to the assessee. In our opinion the order of Ld.CIT(A) is also not speaking and he just passed cryptic order confirming the order of AO. Hence, in our opinion, in the interest of justice, it is appropriate to give one more opportunity to the assessee to put forth the assessee s case before Ld.CIT(A). If the assessee shows the same behavior in the second round before the Ld.CIT(A) as earlier, the Ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to take decision in accordance with law after providing seized documents and sworn in statements to the assessee for their comments.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G.PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.(SS)A.Nos.13 &14 /Mds/2014 Block period: 1997-98 to 2002-03 ITA Nos.2264 & 2265/Mds./2014 Assessment years : 2003-04 & 2004-05 Shri NNA Azeez, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, 925/926, Poonamallee High Road, Central Circle II(1),Chennai-34. Purasawakkam, Chennai-84. [PAN ADFPN 2914 C] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.(SS)A.No. 15/Mds/2014 Block period: 1997-98 to 2002-03 Ms.Thajunnisa, Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Represented by N.A.Abuthahir, Central Circle II(1),Chennai-34. Gnanguru Consultancy,121-A,East Car Street,Chidambaram 608 001. PAN AADIPT 1788 P Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.(SS)A.No. 16/Mds/2014 Block period: 1997-98 to 2002-03 M/s.ABU Estates Pvt Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Gnanguru Consultancy,121-A,East Car Central Circle II(1),Chennai-34. Street,Chidambaram 608 001. [PAN AAACA 6435 F ] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Mr.T.Banusekar,C.A Respondent by : Mr.R.Duai Pandian,Sr.AR Date of Hearing : 19-09-2016 Date of Pronouncement : 23-09-2016 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER All these appeals are filed by assessee are directed against different orders of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(A)(C)-II, Chennai, dated 29.05.2014. Since issues involved in all these appeals are common in nature, these appeals are clubbed :- 2 -: IT(SS)A Nos. 13 to 16/Mds./2014 ITA Nos.2264 & 2265/Mds./14 together, heard together, disposed off by this common order for sake of convenience. IT(SS)A No.15/Mds./14 2. assessee challenged various additions made by AO, which were confirmed by Ld.CIT(A). assessee raised additional grounds stating that Ld.CIT(A) passed order without bringing legal heir on record. Besides this, assessee raised other point in additional ground stating that assessment was framed u/s.158BD of Act without recording satisfaction by concerned Assessing Officer and also assessment is not based on any seized material found during course of search action. 3. We have heard both parties and perused additional grounds raised by assessee. ld.A.R explained before us that these additional grounds are not raised before Ld.CIT(A) due to inadvertence and same may be admitted. In our opinion, due to inadvertence, assessee was not raised additional grounds before Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we place reliance on judgement of Supreme Court in case of National Thermal Power Company Limited reported in 229 ITR 383(SC), and admitting additional grounds. 4. Ld.A.R further pleaded that though assessment was framed in name of NNA Azeez on 28.02.2006, who was expired on 28.04.2010 and appeals are filed before Ld.CIT(A) on :- 3 -: IT(SS)A Nos. 13 to 16/Mds./2014 ITA Nos.2264 & 2265/Mds./14 25.03.2006 and she was expired during course of pendency of appeal before Ld.CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) s order was passed on 29.05.2014 in name of deceased person. Hence, he prayed that legal heirs of assessee may be brought on record before passing order u/s.250 of Act by Ld.CIT(A). Considering plea of assessee, in interest of justice, we remit entire issue in dispute to file of Ld.CIT(A) to bring legal heir of deceased person i.e assessee, on record and Ld.CIT(A) give fair opportunity of hearing to legal heir, then decide issue in accordance with law. With this observation, we remit entire isuse in dispute to file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 5. In result, appeal of assessee in IT(SS))A No. 15/Mds./2014 is partly allowed for statistical purposes. 6. All other appeals of assessee i.e. IT(ss) Nos.13 to 16/Mds./14, 2264 & 2265/Mds./14 emanated from different orders of Ld.CIT(A) passed u/s.250 of Act. assessee raised various grounds is with regard to merit of addition sustained by Ld.CIT(A). Further, assessee primarily objected before us that orders of Ld.CIT(A) have been passed in these cases without giving adequate opportunity of hearing to assessee and Ld.CIT(A) has based his conclusion only on written submissions filed by assessee. Further, ld.A.R also submitted that Revenue authorities has not :- 4 -: IT(SS)A Nos. 13 to 16/Mds./2014 ITA Nos.2264 & 2265/Mds./14 furnished various seized documents and sworn in statements used for purpose of assessment and according to him, it is inappropriate to make exorbitant additions without furnishing seized documents and sworn in statements to assessee. 7. According to ld.D.R, ample opportunity has been given to assessee, but assessee failed to make use of opportunity given to assessee. Hence, Ld.CIT(A) having no option, he passed these order on basis of written submissions filed before him. 8. We have heard both parties and perused material on record. Considering primary objections of ld.A.R, in or opinion that Ld.CIT(A) has not given fair opportunity of personal appearance of assessee as well as ld.A.R. assessee failed to appear before Ld.CIT(A) properly and finally on 19.09.2013, ld.A.R appeared before Ld.CIT(A) and undertook to furnish evidence before Ld.CIT(A). However, nothing was furnished before Ld.CIT(A). Finally, Ld.CIT(A) passed order on 29.05.2014. In our opinion order of Ld.CIT(A) is also not speaking and he just passed cryptic order confirming order of AO. Hence, in our opinion, in interest of justice, it is appropriate to give one more opportunity to assessee to put forth assessee s case before Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, entire issue in dispute is remitted back to :- 5 -: IT(SS)A Nos. 13 to 16/Mds./2014 ITA Nos.2264 & 2265/Mds./14 file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration to decide issues in dispute after giving opportunity of hearing to assessee. If assessee shows same behavior in second round before Ld.CIT(A) as earlier, Ld.CIT(A) is at liberty to take decision in accordance with law after providing seized documents and sworn in statements to assessee for their comments. With this observation, we remit entire isuse in dispute to file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration. 9. In result, all appeals of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced on 23rd September, 2016, at Chennai. Sd/- Sd/- (G.PAVAN KUMAR) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Chennai Dated: 23rd September, 2016 K S Sundaram Copy to: 1. Appellant 3. CIT(A) 5. DR 2. Respondent 4. CIT 6. GF Nna Azeez v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle II(1),Chennai
Report Error