Tca/233/2009 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax v. Shri R Nedunchezhian

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 18.03.2019CORAMTHE HONOURABLE DR.JUSTICE VINEET KOTHARIANDTHE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN Tax Case Appeal Nos.233 to 237 of 2009 Tax Case Appeals filed under Section 260A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 against the orders of the Income Tax AppellateTribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, dated 27.09.2004 in ITANos.753/Mds/2003, 837/Mds/2003, 838/Mds/2003, 839/Mds/2003 and840/Mds/2003 against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) in I.T.A. 66/00-01, 65/00-01, 64/00-01, 63/00-01,62/00-01 & 61/00-01 dated 30.01.2003 against the order of theAssistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle II, Salem 636 007for the assessment years 1992-1993 dated 14.03.1997 and 1994-1995, 1995-1996, 1996-1997 and 1997-1998 dated 31.03.2000. (Delivered by DR.VINEET KOTHARI,J) The Revenue has filed these appeals placing the purportedsubstantial questions of law arising from the orders passed bythe Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench, dated27.09.2004 in ITA Nos.753/Mds/2003, 837/Mds/2003, 838/Mds/2003,839/Mds/2003 and 840/Mds/2003, by which the learned Tribunal hadmerely set aside the orders passed by the lower authorities andremanded the cases back to the Assessing Authority for freshinvestigation into the matter on the relevant findings of fact. 2.The learned Tribunal found that the assesseeMr.R.Nedunchezian was working as Assistant in the Office of theSub-Divisional Engineer, Transmission and Installation in theDepartment of Telecommunication, Salem. It is seen that hecollected some deposits from the public along with Mr.M.Elangoto start a business concern by name M/s.Valga ValamudanEnterprises, and deposited the same in various banks, as follows: https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3.Since he could not explain the credit of a huge sum ofRs.12,13,000/- in his bank accounts, the same was treated asunexplained income in his account and brought to tax. Thelearned Tribunal had merely remanded back the cases with thefollowing observation: “These appeals are by the assessee, anindividual, against the orders of the CIT(A). Thegrievance pertains to the treating of the sum ofRs.12,13,000/- as undisclosed income of the assesseein regard to deposits made with various banks. Theassessee apparently was desirous of starting a concernby name “M/s.Valga Valamudan Enterprises” along withShri M.Elango as a co-deposit owner and collecteddeposits from various people. However, the depositswere made in the personal accounts of some of thepersons. Identical issue came up for consideration.The Tribunal, vide its order dated 29.08.2003 in ITANo.751/Mds/98 etc. for the assessment year 1992-93 inthe cases of S.Rangan and others had remitted theissue to the file of the Assessing Officer forexamination in its entirety. This was so because largenumber of public were crying that they have beenwronged and their money which was taken from them wasnot returned to them. The facts and circumstances inthe instant case being identical, we direct theAssessing Officer to carry out extensive investigationand call for details of the persons and allow theassessee sufficient opportunity of being heard anddecide the issue afresh. For this purpose, we setaside the orders of the authorities. For statistical purposes, the appeals are to betreated as allowed in part.” 4.On 13.04.2009, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court admittedthe appeals on the following substantial questions of law: For statistical purposes, the appeals are to betreated as allowed in part.” 4.On 13.04.2009, a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court admittedthe appeals on the following substantial questions of law: “1.Whether on the facts and in the circumstancesof the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in holding that the Assessing Officer was notcorrect in invoking Sections 69/69A of the Income TaxAct, 1961 in the hands of the assessee in whose namethe monies stood invested on the ground that somemembers of the public have claimed monies as belongingto them and that too in the absence of anycorroborative evidence and in assessing the interest onthe unexplained bank deposits in the hands of theassessee? 2.Whether on the facts and in the circumstances ofthe case that the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wasright in impliedly giving directions to verify and linkthe deposits with the alleged deposits received fromthe public in the name of a proposed concern called'Vazhga Valamudan Enterprises' when the taxing of anyunexplained investment and income by way of interestetc., in the hands of the alleged firm by initiation ofproceedings u/s 147 was already barred by limitation?” 5.There is no appearance on behalf of the respondentassessee. Having heard the learned counsel for the Revenue, weare of the opinion that in view of the open and simple remandmade by the learned Tribunal, in fact, no substantial questionsof law arises in the present cases and therefore we need notanswer the questions of law on which the appeals were admittedby the Co-ordinate Bench on 13.04.2009. We leave it free for theAssessing Officer to complete the assessments upon remand by thelearned Tribunal, in accordance with law. 6.The Tax Case Appeals, are accordingly dismissed. Nocosts. KMTo s/d- Assistant Registrar(CS-III) True Copy Sub-Assistant Registrar 1.The Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chennai 'C' Bench. 2. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) No.3, Gandhi Road Salem. No.3, Gandhi Road Salem. 3. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle II, Salem 636 007. +1 CC to Mr.M.Swaminathan, Advocate sr 25981. Tax Case Appeal Nos.233 to237 of 2009 PPA(CO)SP(25/04/2019)