Ramjibhai Harjibhai Zapda, Rajkot V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(4), Rajkot

ITA 1/RJT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9272 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 31-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIMANYU SINGH YADAV
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Benefit of exemption
• Section: 147; 148; 144; 142(1); 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT [CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT] Before: Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Judicial Member And Shri Waseem Ahmed, Accountant Member Shri Ramjibhai Harjibhai Zapda, Post: Moti Chandol, Village: Fatepar, Taluka: Paddhari, Dist: Rajkot PAN: AAVPZ6753A (Appellant) Vs The ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Rajkot (Respondent) Assessee by: None Revenue by: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 20-12-2023 Date of pronouncement : 03-01-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- This is an appeal filed against the order dated 15-11- 2017 passed by ld. CIT(A)-2 for assessment year 2008-09. ITA No. 1/Rjt/2018 Assessment Year 2008-09 I.T.A No. 1/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No Ramjibhai Harjibhai Zapda vs. ITO 2 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. The Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs 10,17,000/-. The same needs cancellation. 2. The Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs 10,13,800/- treating the same as unexplained cash deposit in bank account. The same needs cancellation. 3. The Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 3,258/- treating the same as interest earned on unexplained cash deposit in bank account. The same needs cancellation. 4. The Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,17,060/- without considering that the Ld. A.O. has erred in not giving proper opportunity and adequately considering the matter. The same needs cancellation. 5. The Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,12,060 based on irrelevant consideration. The same needs cancellation. 6. The Id. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not accepting the explanation given by the assessee without cogent reason. The addition needs deletion. 7. The Ld CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 10,17,060/- although no legal services of the notices are there. The same needs cancellation. 8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not giving due deductions while completing assessments. The same needs to be allowed. 9. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not giving benefit of exemption while completing assessments. The same needs to be allowed. 10. Taking into consideration legal, statutory, factual and administrative aspects determination of income at 10,17,060/- ought not to have been confirmed. The determination needs cancellation. I.T.A No. 1/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No Ramjibhai Harjibhai Zapda vs. ITO 3 11. Without prejudice, the assessment made being illegal, void, bad in law and against statutory provisions, needs annulment 12. Without prejudice, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering peak position and without working out the peak of the amount deposited with the bank. The addition needs suitable reduction. 13. Without prejudice, no reasonable opportunity has been given by the Ld. CIT(A) while completing assessment. The same needs annulment. 14. The appellant craves leave to add/alter/amend and/or substitute any or all grounds of appeal before the actual hearing takes place.” 3. The assessee did not file return of income. As per the information, the assessee deposited cash of Rs. 10,13,800/- in his saving bank account and the Assessing Officer observed that the source of cash deposits remained unexplained. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s. 147 of the act after recording reasons. Notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on 27-03-2015. Letter u/s. 133(6) was also issued to the Bank of India calling for information in respect of the transaction and the details of the KYC of the assessee. Notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act was issued on 24-08-2015 which was duly served upon the assessee. In response to the letter issued u/s. 133(6) of the act, the Bank of India furnished the copy of bank statement. The assessee neither attended in person nor through Authorized Representative and there was no reply on record, therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded on the basis of section 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act and made addition of Rs. 10,13,800/- in respect of cash deposits and Rs. 3,258/- as interest income. I.T.A No. 1/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No Ramjibhai Harjibhai Zapda vs. ITO 4 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing despite issuing notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the past, on assessee’s behalf, the ld. A.R. Shri D.R. Adhia has filed adjournment letters but has not appeared before us when the matter was called out. From the perusal of records it appears that the submissions of the assessee reproduced in the order of the CIT(A). Hence, we are proceeding on the basis of the contentions of the assessee before the CIT(A). 6. The ld. Departmental Representative relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the ld. Departmental Representative and perused all the relevant materials available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee is submitting that there was a land sale and the agricultural land was sold on 24-12-2007 at Rs. 10,00,000/- which includes money received of Rs. 8,50,000/- and sale value of Rs. 1,50,000/- as per sale deed. The assessee requested the CIT(A) to remand back the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to verify his transaction but the CIT(A) has not taken into cognizance of the said submissions outrightly rejected contention. It appears that the additional evidences were not filed before CIT(A). From the findings given by the CIT(A), it will be in the interest of justice that the additional evidences be filed by the I.T.A No. 1/Rjt/2018 A.Y. 2008-09 Page No Ramjibhai Harjibhai Zapda vs. ITO 5 assessee before the CIT(A) and the same should be verified by the Assessing Officer and after presenting the remand report before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) should adjudicate the issues on merit. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. It is directed to the assessee that the assessee will fully co-operate with appellate proceedings before the CIT(A) and will file relevant documents within the stipulated time given by the CIT(A). If the assessee does not cooperate with the hearing and does not file any evidences for supporting the case of the assessee, then the CIT(A) is at liberty to take appropriate decision as per law. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 03-01-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 03/01/2024 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. Guard file. By order, Assistant Registrar, Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Rajkot