V.Lalitha, Tiruchengode vs Assessee

This appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of

the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Salem, dated

31.03.2015 and pertains to assessment year 2008-09. 2 I.T.A. No.890/Mds/15

2. Shri S. Sridhar, the Ld.counsel for the assessee, submitted

that the Assessing Officer, on the basis of the direction of the Addl.

CIT under Section 144A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the

Act'), made an addition to the extent of `20,97,170/- and another

sum of `1,60,124/- towards deficit stock. According to the Ld.

counsel, there was a survey in the premises of the assessee and in

fact, the assessee admitted that she would offer additional income

to the extent of `20,97,170/-. By way of letter dated 14.12.2010, the

assessee explained to the Assessing Officer that during the course

of survey operation, she was under mental pressure and out of

nervousness she signed the statements. Therefore, it could not be

acted upon. According to the Ld. counsel, an opportunity may be

given to the assessee to explain how the addition could not be

made. Referring to Section 144A of the Act, the Ld.counsel

submitted that income cannot be added unless an opportunity is

given to the assessee by the Addl. Commissioner. Since no

opportunity was given, according to the Ld. counsel, the case may

be remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer to reconsider

the matter afresh.

3. We have heard Sh. P. Radhakrishnan, the Ld. Departmental

Representative also. The Ld. D.R. submitted that a survey was 3 I.T.A. No.890/Mds/15

conducted on 4.10.2007 and on 14.12.2010, the assessee retracted

the statement recorded during the survey, almost after three years.

Therefore, there is no justification in claiming now that the addition

could not be made on the basis of the statement recorded during

the course of survey operation.

4. We have considered the rival submissions on either side and

perused the relevant material on record. We have also carefully

gone through the provisions of Section 144A of the Act. Proviso to

Section 144A clearly says that no directions which are prejudicial to

the assessee shall be issued before an opportunity is given to the

assessee to be heard. Therefore, it is obvious that the Addl.

Commissioner cannot give any direction without giving an

opportunity to the assessee when it is prejudicial to the interests of

the assessee. In this case, the assessee claims that other than the

statement said to be recorded during the course of survey, there is

no other material available on record. It is not known whether any

incriminating material was found during the course of survey.

Therefore, this Tribunal is of the considered opinion that the matter

needs to be reconsidered by the Assessing Officer as contended by

the Ld.counsel. Accordingly, the orders of the lower authorities are

set aside and the entire issue is remitted back to the file of the 4 I.T.A. No.890/Mds/15

Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall reconsider the issue

afresh and thereafter decide the matter in accordance with law after

giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee.

5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for

statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 26th June, 2015 at Chennai.

sd/- sd/- (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (A. Mohan Alankamony) (N.R.S. Ganesan) लेखा सद य/Accountant Member या यक सद य/Judicial Member

चे नई/Chennai, th 4दनांक/Dated, the 26 June, 2015.

Kri.

आदे श क. , त5ल6प अ7े6षत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ+/Appellant 2. ,-यथ+/Respondent 3. आयकर आय8 ु त (अपील)/CIT(A), Salem 4. आयकर आय8 ु त/CIT, Salem 5. 6वभागीय , त न ध/DR 6. गाड' फाईल/GF.