K.Prasanna Raghavendran, Chennai vs Assessee

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.283/Mds/2014 %नधा$रण वष$ /Assessment Year : 2008-09

Shri K. Prasanna Raghavendran, The Deputy Commissioner of No.40, VOC Road, v. Income Tax, Trichy - 620 001. Company Circle - I, Trichy. PAN : AIKPP 7545 H (अपीलाथ+/Appellant) (,-यथ+/Respondent)

अपीलाथ+ क. ओर से/Appellant by : Shri Nithyaesh Nataraj, Advocate ,-यथ+ क. ओर से/Respondent by : Shri N. Madhavan, JCIT

सन ु वाई क. तार ख/Date of Hearing : 24.02.2015 घोषणा क. तार ख/Date of Pronouncement: 27.02.2015

आदे श /O R D E R

PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

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 I.T.A. No. 283/Mds/2014

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 3 I.T.A. No. 283/Mds/2014

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.

4 I.T.A. No. 283/Mds/2014

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

Kri.

आदे श क. ,%त@लAप अBेAषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant 2. ,-यथ+/Respondent

3. आयकर आयुCत (अपील)/CIT(A), Tiruchirappalli

4. आयकर आयुCत/CIT-I, Tiruchirappalli

5. Aवभागीय ,%त%न ध/DR

6. गाड$ फाईल/GF.