A.Thangaraj, Kumbakonam vs Department Of Income Tax

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH, CHENNAI ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद य एवं ी वी. दग ु ा$ राव, या%यक सद य केसम&

BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2861/Mds/2014 %नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year : 2010-11

The Income Tax Officer, Shri A. Thangaraj, Ward I(1), v. No.87/44, Pachyappa Street, Kumbakonam - 612 001. Kumbakonam - 612 001.

PAN : ACMPT 6648 R (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2771/Mds/2014 %नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year : 2010-11

Shri A. Thangaraj, The Income Tax Officer, No.87/44, Pachyappa Street, v. Ward I(1), Kumbakonam - 612 001. Kumbakonam - 612 001. (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

Revenue by : Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT Assessee by : Shri T. Banusekar, CA

सन ु वाई क. तार ख/Date of Hearing : 25.02.2015 घोषणा क. तार ख/Date of Pronouncement: 05.03.2015

आदे श /O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The Revenue and the assessee are in cross appeals filed

against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),

Tiruchirapalli, dated 27.08.2014 for the assessment year 2010-11. 2 I.T.A. No. 2861/Mds/2014

I.T.A. No. 2771/Mds/2014

2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is dealing with the

business of puffed rice. The return of income filed by the

assessee was initially processed/ 143(1) of the Income-tax Act,

1961 and after due process, the assessment was completed under

Section 143(3) of the Act. During the course of assessment

proceedings, the A.O. has found certain cash credits in the

assessee's bank accounts. When the A.O. asked the assessee for

explanation, the assessee failed to explain before the A.O.

Therefore the A.O. has invoked provisions of Section 68 of the Act

and made additions accordingly.

3. The assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld.

CIT(Appeals). The assessee filed all the details and gave

explanation before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). The Ld. CIT(Appeals),

after considering the explanation given by the assessee, deleted the

addition made by the A.O. in respect of cash credits and sustained

the addition in respect of the unaccounted turnover.

4. On being aggrieved, both Revenue as well as the assessee

are before us.

5. The Ld. D.R. has submitted that the assessee has not filed

any details before the A.O. and only filed before the Ld. 3 I.T.A. No. 2861/Mds/2014 I.T.A. No. 2771/Mds/2014

CIT(Appeals). He submitted that the entire issues have to go back

to the A.O. to decide afresh.

6. On the other hand, the Ld.counsel for the assessee fairly

accepted that the issues may be remitted back to the A.O.

7. We have heard both sides and perused the records and

gone through the orders of the authorities below. By considering

the submissions of both the parties, we find that the order passed

by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has to be set aside. Accordingly, we set

aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and direct the A.O. to

decide the issues de novo after giving reasonable opportunity of

being heard to the assessee.

8. In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue as well as the

assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on Thursday, the 5th of March, 2015 at

Chennai.

Sd/- sd/- (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (वी. दग ु ा$ राव) (A. Mohan Alankamony) (V. Durga Rao) लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या%यक सद य/Judicial Member चे नई/Chennai, th =दनांक/Dated, the 5 March, 2015. Kri. 4 I.T.A. No. 2861/Mds/2014 I.T.A. No. 2771/Mds/2014

आदे श क. ,%त?ल@प अAे@षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant 2. ,-यथ+/Respondent

3. आयकर आयुBत (अपील)/CIT(A), Thiruchirappalli

4. आयकर आयB ु त/CIT-II, Trichy

5. @वभागीय ,%त%न ध/DR

6. गाड$ फाईल/GF.