Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Chennai
Rajkumari Gulecha, Chennai vs Acit Non Corporate Circle 6(1), Chennai on 8 August, 2019
आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, 'बी' यायपीठ, चे नई
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
' B' BENCH : CHENNAI
ी एन.आर.एस. गणेशन, या यक सद य एवं
ी इंटूर रामा राव, लेखा सद य के सम
[BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER]
आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1405/CHNY/2019
नधारण वष /Assessment year : 2011-2012.
Mrs. Rajkumari Gulecha, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of
No.402, Mint Street, Income Tax,
Sowcarpet, Non Corporate Circle 6(1)
Chennai 600 079. Chennai.
[PAN AAFPR 4561E]
(अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent)
अपीलाथ# क$ ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. D. Anand, Advocate
&'यथ# क$ ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. V.M. Mahidar, IRS, JCIT
सन
ु वाई क$ तार ख/Date of Hearing : 06-08-2019
घोषणा क$ तार ख /Date of Pronouncement : 08-08-2019
आदे श / O R D E R
PER INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Chennai ('CIT(A)' for short) dated 22.02.2019 for assessment year 2011-2012.
2. The Assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:
:- 2 -: ITA No.1405/CHNY/2019 ''1. The order of the learned Commissioner Of Income (Appeals)-5, is wrong, illegal and is opposed to law.
2. The learned CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated the appeals appeal on merits by considering the various grounds raised by the appellant.
3. The learned Commissioner Of Income (Appeals)-5 ought to have seen that the Assessing Officer has failed to bring any adverse information on record to prove the allegation that appellant has taken F&O loss of Rs. 15,00,539/- by misusing the client code facility. It is not a case where there is nexus between the broker and the appellant or a pre- planned strategy to supress or transfer income to avoid taxes.
4. The learned CIT(A)-5 ought to have seen that the assessing officer erred in making addition of Rs.28,79,387/- merely on the basis of information received from the investigation directorate without even considering the material evidence provided to the assessing officer to substantiate the genuineness of the transaction.
5. The learned Commissioner of Income tax ought to have seen that the code corrections were on account of inadvertent punching errors by the brokers and were not done with any malafide intent of reducing and supressing income. The learned revenue authorities sustained the said addition despite the confirmation given by MIs, Cholamandalam Securities Ltd and further confirmation by the broker that the exchange obligation on the aforesaid transaction have been met only by the appellant.
For these and other grounds that may be rendered at the time of hearing it is most humbly prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to allow the appellants appeal and thus render justice''.
3. The brief facts of the case are as under:
The appellant is an individual engaged in the business of trading in shares and derivatives. The return of income for the AY 2011-12 :- 3 -: ITA No.1405/CHNY/2019 was filed on 28.09.2011 disclosing total income of Rs. 86,11,260/-. The said return of income was accepted u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ''the Act''). In scrutiny assessment, subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 24.03.2017 based on the information that income escaped assessment to the extent of G28,79,387/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the Assistant Commissioner, Non Corporate Circle 6(1),Chennai (hereinafter called as ''Assessing Officer'') vide order dated 22.12.2017 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act at total income of Rs.1,14,90,650/- after making addition of G28,79,387/- after disallowing loss on account of client code modifications.
4. Being aggrieved by the above addition, an appeal was preferred before the ld. CIT(A), who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal for non prosecution.
5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. From the perusal of the ld. CIT(A) order, it is clear that ld.
CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without disposing the appeal on merits. Now it is settled position of law that appellate authority while passing ex-parte order should dispose the matter on merits.
Therefore we remit this matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for
:- 4 -: ITA No.1405/CHNY/2019
denovo consideration after affording due opportunity of hearing to the appellant. Hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced on 8th day of August, 2019, at Chennai.
Sd/- Sd/-
(एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (इंटूर रामा राव)
(N.R.S. GANESAN) (INTURI RAMA RAO)
या यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
चे नई/Chennai
.दनांक/Dated: 8th August, 2019.
KV
आदे श क$ & त0ल1प अ2े1षत/Copy to:
1. अपीलाथ#/Appellant 3. आयकर आयु3त (अपील)/CIT(A) 5. 1वभागीय & त न7ध/DR
2. &'यथ#/Respondent 4. आयकर आयु3त/CIT 6. गाड फाईल/GF