Sri. A. Nagaraju, Bangalore V. ITO, Bangalore

ITA 1271/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9366 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARESH SAKA
• Assessee Lawyers: V SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1271(BANG) 2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007 08) SRI A. NAGARAJU, L 1115, 6 TH MAIN, 18 TH CROSS, 7 TH SECTOR, HSR LAYOUT, BANGALORE 560032 PAN : AFAPN3659P APPELLANT VS ITO, WARD 15 (1), BANGALORE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY :SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI NARESH SAKA JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 22-09-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : -09-2016 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A) 3, BANGALORE DATED 15.04.2016 FOR A. Y. 2 007 08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS BUT THE GRIEVANCES ARE TWO. FIRST GRIEVANCE IS ABOUT TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 11.41 LACS AS NON AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE SECOND GRIEVANCE IS ABOUT MAKING ADD ITION OF RS. 8.19 LACS BEING CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ON PAG ES 7 TO 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK ARE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM ABOUT AGR ICULTURAL INCOME BUT SINCE THESE DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE TRANSLATED IN ENGLISH, THE MATTER MAY BE ADJOURNED TO ENABLE THE ASSESSEE TO GET THE SAME TRANSLATED. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH THAT EVEN IF THE TIME IS GRANTED AND THE ASSE SSEE FILES THE TRANSLATED DOCUMENTS, THE MATTER HAS TO GO BACK AS TRANSLATED COPY WAS NO T MADE AVAILABLE TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN REPLY, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO CIT (A) AND THE ASSESSEE WILL FURNISH THE TRANSLATED COPY BEFORE HI M AND THEREAFTER, HE MAY PASS A FRESH ORDER. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF CIT (A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. I FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO CIT (A) FOR A FRESH DECISION. ACCORDINGLY, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER B ACK TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION THAT HE SHOULD PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASS ESSEE TO FILE THE TRANSLATED COPY OF THE DOCUMENTS AND THEREAFTER, HE SHOULD PASS A REAS ONED AND SPEAKING ORDER AS PER LAW AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO. 1271(BANG) 2016 2 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. (A.K. GARODIA) ACCOUN TANT MEMBER BANGALORE: D A T E D : .09.2016 AM* COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A)-II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER, AR, ITAT, BANGALORE 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER . 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P. S. .. 4 DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT .. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S. .. 6. DATE OF UPLOADING THE ORDER ON WEBSITE .. 7. IF NOT UPLOADED, FURNISH THE REASON FOR DOING SO . 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES T O THE BENCH CLERK .. 9. DATE ON WHICH ORDER DOES FOR XEROX & ENDORSEMENT . 10. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 11 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER. 12 THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE DISPATCH SEC TION FOR DISPATCH OF THE TRIBUNAL ORDER 13 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER