Ramakanta Pradhan, Khurda V. ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda

ITA 138/CTK/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3140 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 17-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BRAJA BANDHU BIHARI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PA V AN KUMAR GADALE, JM . / ITA NO. 13 8 /CTK/201 8 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 4 - 20 1 5 ) RAMAKANTA PRADHAN, AT - SARIPUR, BALIPATNA, DIST - KHURDA - 752102 VS. ITO, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AXKPP 5616 J ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) [ /AS SESSEE BY : SHRI BRAJA BANDHU BIHARI, AR /REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHENDU DUTTA , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 2 0 / 0 8 /201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 / 0 8 /201 8 / O R D E R PER SHRI PA V AN KUMAR GADALE, JM : TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 1 , BHUBANESWAR , DATED 13.12.2017 PASSED IN I.T.APPEAL NO. 0223 / 1 6 - 1 7 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 4 - 201 5 . 2. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION STATING THEREIN THAT REQUIRED PAPERS AND INFORMATION IN THE MATTER COULD NO T BE COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE AS HE IS OUT OF STATION FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT OF HIS RELATIVE, WHICH IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT A PLAUSIBLE ONE, ACCORDINGLY WE REJECT THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION AND APPEAL IS HEARD FINALLY. 3 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWI NG GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA WITHOUT VALID REASON AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE F ACTS OF THE CASE IS ILLEGAL AND ARBITRARY AND LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. ITA NO. 138 /CTK/201 8 2 2. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.9,75,000/ - TO THE TOTAL INCOME ON THE GROUND THAT THE ENTIRE BANK DEPOSITS, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF CASE AND NATURE OF TRANSACTION IS ILLEGAL AND AR BITRARY. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS ORDER OF APPEAL IS OTHERWISE BAD IN LAW AND NOT MAINTAINABLE, SINCE THE APPELLANT DEPRIVED FROM THE BENEFIT OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT BE GS TO URGE FURTHER GROUNDS TO BE RAISED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 19.09.2014 FOR THE A.Y. 201 3 - 201 4 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,46,530/ - . THE RETURN OF INCOME WA S PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. S UBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICES U/S.143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SAME, LD. AR APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND CASE WAS DISCUSSED. THEREAFTER T HE AO COMPL ETED THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 18,71,530/ - AND PASSED ORDER U/S.14 4 OF THE ACT , DATED 16.11.2016 MAKING DISALLOWANCE UNDER THE HEAD UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED UNDER CHAPTER VIA OF THE ACT. 5 . AGGRIEVED B Y THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS , THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND FINDINGS OF THE AO, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7 . L D. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS FACTS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO, THEREFORE PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 138 /CTK/201 8 3 8. CO NTRA, LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRESSED THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A) IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND NOW CANNOT AGITATE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON THE SAME GROUND WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. F URTHER WE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE RELIEF FROM THE CIT(A) AND HA S FILED SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF BANK D EPOSITS. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT HAVING NOT PROSECUTED THE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ACCEPTING THAT THE SAME IS NOT PRESSED, THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CHALLENGE THE SAME GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE GROUND S OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE. 10 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 / 08 / 201 8 . SD/ - ( N.S.SAINI ) SD/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 23 / 08 /201 8 . . / PKM , SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - RAMAKANT A PRADHAN, AT - SARIPUR, BALIPATNA, DIST - KHURDA - 752102 2. / THE RESPONDENT - ITO, KHURDA WARD, KHURDA 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. [ / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//