आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ (cid:15)ायपीठ, चे(cid:20)ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI (cid:22)ी मनु कु मार िग(cid:27)र ,(cid:15)ाियक सद(cid:30) एवं (cid:22)ी एस.आर.रघुनाथा, लेखा सद(cid:30) के सम&

BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R.RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2777/Chny/2024 & C.O.No.27/Chny/2025 (In ITA No.2777/Chny/2024)

(िनधा(cid:5)रण वष(cid:5) / Assessment Year: 2017-18)

The Assistant Commissioner of Vs Shri Kamatchipuram Vellingiri Income Tax, Jayaraman, Non-Corporate Circle-2, 17, Sundaram Bros Layout Coimbatore. Ramanathapuram-641 045.

PAN:ADJPV-7536-L (अपीलाथ(cid:15)/Appellant) ((cid:16)(cid:17)यथ(cid:15)/Respondent/Cross Objector)

अपीलाथ(cid:15)क(cid:20)ओरसे/ Appellant by : Ms. D.Komali Krishna, CIT (cid:16)(cid:17)यथ(cid:15)क(cid:20)ओरस/ेRespondent by : Mr.Venkatswami, ITP &

Mr. Chinthala Sundara Rao, PCIT (Retired.)

सुनवाईक(cid:8)तारीख/Date of hearing : 24.04.2025 घोषणाक(cid:8)तारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 29.04.2025 आदशे / O R D E R PER MANU KUMAR GIRI, JM:

The captioned appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Chennai-20 [CIT(A)] dated 31.08.2024 for Assessment Year 2017-18. In this appeal, a Cross Objection No.27/Chny/2025 is also filed by the assessee.

2. The registry has noted delay of 148 days in filing the cross objection. Considering the reasons stated in the affidavit by the Assessee, we condone the delay and treat the reasons as ‘sufficient cause’ and admit the cross objection for adjudication.

3. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous on facts of the case and In law.

2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in holding the re-opening u/s 147 of the Act as Invalid by relying on case laws prior to the amendments made in the Act by Finance Act 2016 in respect of section 147 of the Act w.e.f.01/06/2016 wherein under Explanation 3 It is mentioned that - "For the purposes of assessment or reassessment under this section, the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess the income in respect of any issue, which has escaped assessment, and such issue comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, notwithstanding that the reasons for such issue have not been included in the reasons recorded under sub-

section (2) of section 148” for allowing the appeal of the assessee.'

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred In not appreciating that the assesse failed to discharge his duty of full disclosure of consolidated Profit & Loss account of three businesses as Explanation 1 to section 147 of the Act reads clearly (as introduced by Finance Act 2016 w.e.f. 01/06/2016)," Production before the Assessing Officer of account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the Assessing Officer will not necessarily amount to disclosure with the meaning of the foregoing proviso".

4. The Ld, CIT (A) erred in not taking cognizance of the fact that the issue of re-opening the incomes under the ambit of the re-assessment proceedings decided in Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. CIT [2011] 12 taxmann.com 74/200 Taxman 242 (Delhi)/336 ITR 136 (Delhi)/[2011] 242 CTR 117 (Deihl) have been overruled by the The SUPREME COURT OF INDIA in Jakhotia Plastics (P.) Ltd. Vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax [2018] 94 taxmann.com 96 (SC).

5. For these grounds and any other ground Including amendment of grounds that may be raised during the course of the appeal proceedings, the order of learned CIT(Appeals) may be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored.”

4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of cross objection:

1.The order passed by the Ld.CIT(A)in so far as it is favorable to the Respondent/Cross Objector is just and proper and the same does not require interference, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) has rightly followed the judic