9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (12) TMI 1595X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... law to ignore the facts and documents submitted in defence by the appellant before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as well as before the Assessing Officer for assessing the income respectively for the assessment years 2011-12, 2009-10 and 2010-11 without proper application of mind to confirm the assessment of income for certain issues ? And ii. Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in law to confirm the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in certain issues respectively for the assessment years 2011-12, 2009-10 and 2010-11 for statistical purposes without appreciating the materials and evidence made available before the Appellate Tribunal in proper perspective ?" 3. TCA.Nos.718 to 720 of 2018 relate to the assessment years 2009- 10 to 2011-12. The substantial questions of law are identical and the only difference being the assessment year. 4. The Revenue has filed five appeals namely TCA.Nos.805 to 809 of 2018 raising the following three substantial questions of law, which are common in all the appeals except for the appeal against the order passed by the Tribunal in ITA.No.1498/Chny/2018 relating to the assessment year 2014-15 (TCA.No.809 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of law, as we are convinced that the matters should be remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh consideration. We support such a conclusion with the following reasons : 9. As against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-18, Chennai [hereinafter called the CIT(A)], the assessee filed appeals before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, by the common impugned order, recorded that the assessee raised as many as 22 grounds challenging the additions made by the Assessing Officer and the findings of the CIT(A). However, it is seen that the learned counsel, who was appearing for the assessee, withdrew his appearance on the date, when the Tribunal heard the appeals i.e. 13.6.2018. This is recorded by the Tribunal in paragraph 4.2 of the common impugned order. The Tribunal was well justified in proceeding with the matters because the Tribunal cannot dismiss the appeals for non prosecution or for default on the part of the assessee and it is necessarily required to examine the matters on merits. Therefore, the procedure adopted by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. 10. In our considered view, the assessee invited the problem firstly because he has not given proper instructions to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court and sought for interim relief as sought for in the second set of writ petitions and that granting one more opportunity to the assessee did not arise. 12. However, the learned counsel, who appeared before the learned Single Judge pleaded and also gave an undertaking that the assessee would file regular statutory appeals before the Division Bench of this Court within a period of two weeks. Recording such an undertaking, the second set of writ petitions stood disposed of by directing the Assessing Officer to keep the demand notices dated 09.7.2018 in abeyance for a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of that order. The learned Single Judge further made it clear that he had not expressed any view on the merits of the contentions raised by the assessee. It is stated that as undertaken before the learned Single Judge, the assessee filed appeals before this Court within the time permitted. 13. As rightly pointed out by the learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Revenue, the assessee had been frequently approaching this Court by filing writ petitions with a view to stall the recovery proceedings. Be that as it may, we are of the considered view that the asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the hands of the company namely M/s.Millennium Motors. In our considered view, since the CBI filed the final report before the Special Court, any finding, as given by the Assessing Officer though as a protective assessment, may render the criminal case a futile exercise. That apart, we found that the reasons given by the Tribunal are not sufficient to delete the protective assessment in the hands of the assessee with a direction to assess the same in the hands of the company namely M/s.Millennium Motors. 19. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that there are sufficient records to show that the said Ms.Dhanalakshmi swindled substantial amount and the assessee is ready and willing to substantiate the same before the Tribunal, if one opportunity is granted. 20. As pointed out earlier, for the assessment year 2014-15, three additional substantial questions of law are raised by the Revenue. These pertain to the issue as to whether the assessment should be made in the hands of M/s.Arputharaj Associates or in the hands of the assessee herein and as to what would be the effect of the documents, which were recovered during the search operations, for which, the Revenue relies up ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
