Farukbhai Mansurbhai Parmar, Bhavanagar V. ITO, Ward-2(3), Bhavanagar

ITA 1093/AHD/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4627 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-02-2020
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences; Set aside
• Section: 27; 63; 250; 143(2); 22; 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH BEFORE: SHR I MAHAVIR PRASAD , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER FARUKBHAI MANSURBHAI PARMAR, ROYAL COMPLEX, HAJURPAGYA ROAD, NAVAPARA, BHAVNAGAR PAN: AQKPP9381P (APPELLANT) VS THE IT O , WARD - 2 ( 3) , BHAVNAGAR (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI N.K. GOYAL , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: SHRI P.B. PARMAR , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 12 - 0 2 - 2 020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 - 02 - 2 020 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2015 - 16 , ARI SES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 6, AHMEDABAD DATED 26 - 03 - 2 018 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 1 4 3(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. THE LEARNED C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE APPELLANT AND IN PASSING AN EX PARTE DESPITE THE FACT THAT ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. THE LEARNED CIT( A) HAS ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER IN LI MINE WITHOUT PROVIDING REASONS WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT, I T A NO . 1093 / A HD/20 18 A SS ESSMENT YEAR 2015 - 16 I.T.A NO. 1093 /AHD/20 18 A.Y. 2015 - 16 PAGE NO SHRI FARUKBHAI MANSURBHAI PARMAR VS. IT O 2 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE WITHOUT ANY APPLICATION OF MIND AND IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE ADDITIONS INDEPENDENTLY. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE DISAL LOWANCE OF LOSS OF RS.20,17,440/ - INCURRED IN THE BUSINESS OF ANTIQUE GOODS. 5. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDERS WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND THEY FURTHER ERRED IN GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 6. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN LEVYING INTER EST U/S.234A/B/C OF THE ACT. 7. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE ID. AO IN INITIATING PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 3. THE FACT IN BRIEF IS THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 29 TH SEP, 2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 2 , 41 , 670/ - . THE CASE WAS SUBJECT TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 19 TH S EP, 2016. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PU RCHASE AND SALES IN ANTIQUE GOODS AND CLAIMED LOSS OF R S. 20 , 17 , 440/ - WHICH WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST PROFIT OF R S. 27 , 63 , 412/ - EARNED FROM THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRADING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT A SSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES I. E. PURCHASE BILL AND SALE BILL OF ANTIQUE GOODS , THEREFORE , THE CLAIM OF L OSS OF RS. 20 , 17 , 440/ - WAS DISALLOWED . 4. AGGRIEVED ASSES SEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF NON - PRO SECUTION AS THE ASSESSE HAS FAILED TO MAKE COMPLIANCE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL HAS CONTENDED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE A SSESSEE AND DECIDED THE ISSUE EX - PARTE IN VIOLATION OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE I.T.A NO. 1093 /AHD/20 18 A.Y. 2015 - 16 PAGE NO SHRI FARUKBHAI MANSURBHAI PARMAR VS. IT O 3 ACT. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO FURNISHED PAPER BOOK COMPRISING COPY OF DOCUMENT AND DETAILS OF INFORMATION FURNISHED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. COUN SEL HAS SUBMITTED T HAT NOTICE OF HEARING DATED 19 TH MARCH, 2018 WAS ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ATTENDING HEARING ON 23 RD MARCH, 2018 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD APPLIED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING VIDE LETTER DATED 22 - 03 - 2018 BY SPEED POST WITHOUT ANY DELAY. C ERTIFIED COPIES OF V ARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND SUBMISSIONS FOR MAKING NECESSARY COMPLIANC E BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WERE AWAITED FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY APPLIED FOR THE SAME. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS ALSO CONTENDED THAT ON APPROACHING THE ASSESSING OFFICE R , IT WAS INFORMED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ON TRAIN ING TILL LAST WEEK OF MARCH, 2018 OR FIRST WEEK OF APRIL, 2018 . HOWEVER, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT REPORTED IN THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE ON 26 TH MA RCH, 2018 AND ADJOURNMENT AP PLICATION OF THE ASSESSSEE WAS DELIVERED ON 26 TH MARCH, 2018 AS PER THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES PLACED AT PAGE NO. 46 OF THE PAPER BOOK. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AS REPORTED ABOVE BY THE LD. COUN SEL. IT IS NOTI CED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ISSUED TWO NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE FOR ATTENDING HEARING ON 8 TH FEB, 2018 AND 19 TH MARCH, 2018. ON RECEIVING OF NOTICE DATED 19 TH MARCH, 2018, THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING BECAUSE OF NON - AVA ILABILITY OF CERTIF IED COPIES OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WAS ON TRAINING AS REPORTED ABOVE IN THIS O RDER. W ITHOUT I.T.A NO. 1093 /AHD/20 18 A.Y. 2015 - 16 PAGE NO SHRI FARUKBHAI MANSURBHAI PARMAR VS. IT O 4 CONSIDERING THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS DELIVERED ON 26 TH MARCH, 2018 AS PER ACKNOWLEDGEME NT OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAME DAY ON 26 TH MARCH, 2018 FOR WANT OF NON - PROSECUTION. IT IS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATED FROM THE FACT REPORTED ABOVE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DISMISSING THE APPEA L FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. S UB - SECTION (6) OF THE SECTION 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 CONTEMPLATES THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD SUBSTANTIATE THE POINTS IN DISPUTE AND ASSIGN REASONS IN SUPPORT OF CONCLUSION. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER AND RESTORE THE ISSUE IN APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THEM ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 14 - 02 - 20 20 SD/ - SD/ - ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 14 /02 /2020 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , I.T.A NO. 1093 /AHD/20 18 A.Y. 2015 - 16 PAGE NO SHRI FARUKBHAI MANSURBHAI PARMAR VS. IT O 5 / ,