Shri Dipak Khanderav Naik, Valsad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1, Vapi

ITA 1087/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60621 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-07-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BHATEJA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER I.T.A. NO.1087/AHD/2012 A. Y. 2008-09 DIPAK KHANDERAV NAIK PLOT NO.12 PRAMUKH DARSHAN-1 ATUL ROAD, VASHIER VALSAD-396 001 PAN-AAQPN5945D APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD(1), VAPI RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI O.P. BHATEJA, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATE OF HEARING : 19.07.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.07.2012 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), VALSAD, DATED 31.01.2012. 2. ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN CON FIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,18,301/- OUT OF RS.1,74,574/- MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 69 FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND WHILE FO R RS.43,730/- DISALLOWING CAR EXPENSES. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICE FOR TODAYS HEARING WA S SERVED UPON HIM, HOWEVER, I.T.A. NO.1087/AHD/2012 A. Y. 2008-09 2 WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ON RECORD S O WE PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HEARING LD. D.R. 4. IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED T HAT THE DISALLOWANCES WERE MADE BY THE A.O. WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY SINCE NO SPECIFIC SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS GIVEN ON THE POINTS ON WHICH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE AND ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW ABOUT THE ADDITION O NLY AFTER RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT TO VERIFY THE DETAILS OF THE SAME, ASSESSEE APPLIED FOR THE COPY OF THE ORDERSHE ET BY PAYING COPYING FEE ALSO, HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAS DENIED TO GIVE COPY OF THE ORDERSHEET. THIS SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY THE LETT ER DATED 13 TH JANUARY, 2011 ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE A.O. WE ARE, THER EFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATTER BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FIL E OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20.07.2012 SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY N.K. CHAUDHARY, SR. P.S. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD I.T.A. NO.1087/AHD/2012 A. Y. 2008-09 3 6. THE GUARD FILE BY ORDER AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD