Bhabagrahi Sahoo, Cuttack V. ITO, Ward-2, Paradeep

ITA 142/CTK/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7576 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: AVINASH KEDIA
• Keywords: Business income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.142/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 2010 BHABAGRAHI SAHOO, C/O JAY PRAKASH SAHA, ADVOCATE, KANTA NIKET, PLOT NO.1B/25, SECTOR - 11, CDA, CUTTACK VS. ITO, WARD - 2, MADHUBAN, PARADEEP. PAN/GIR NO. ASGPS 9547 Q (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AVINASH KEDIA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN, DR DATE OF HEARING : 8 /11 / 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 8 /11 / 2016 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - CUTTACK, DATED 23.12.2015 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. FOR THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND WRONG IN ADDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 27,74,000/ - TO THE 2 ITA NO.142/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 2010 INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S 69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. FOR THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND WRONG IN ADDING THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,06,780/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS OTHER BUSINESS RECEIPTS. 3. FOR THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS WHOLLY UNJUSTIFIED AND WRONG IN ADDING RS. 1,27,190/ - AS INCOME FROM CONTRACT WORKS. 4. FOR THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T. (A) SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL AS THE RETURN FILED BY THE APPELLANT WAS UNDER THE PRESUMPTIVE SCHEME AS PER SECTION 44 AE OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE DETAILS BEFORE HIM ON THE DATES FIXED FOR HEARING. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE PROCESS OF COLLECTING DETAILS SUCH AS CONFIRMATION FROM VARIOUS PARTIES FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL AT PAGES 38 TO 41 OF PAPER BOOK, CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. ASHIRBAD FERTILIZERS FILED AT PAGE 42 OF PB , R.C. COPIES FOR 4 NO. TRUCKS FILED AT PAGES 4 TO 24 OF PAPER BOOK AND BANK ACCOUNT & STATEMENTS FILED AT PAGES 25 TO 37 OF PB . SINCE THE SAME COULD N OT BE COLLECTED BEFORE PASSING OF THE ORDER BY THE LD CIT(A), THEREFORE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO FILE ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) AND P RAYED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE 3 ITA NO.142/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 2010 RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD D.R. DID NOT HAVE ANY OBJECTION TO THE A BOVE SUBMISSION OF LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FILE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY THE LD CIT(A) ON VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING FIXED BY HER. THEREFORE, LD CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED IN THE PAPER BOOK IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION FROM VARIOUS PARTIES, CONFIRMATION FROM M/S. ASHIRBAD FERTILISERS, R.C. COPIES FOR 4 NO. TRUCKS AND BANK ACCOUNTS & STATEMENTS BEFORE ME AND HAS SUBMITTED THAT NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN A POSITION TO FILE THE REQUIRED DETAILS BEFORE THE LD CIT (A) AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY CAN BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE L D CIT(A). I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE TO ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES /DETAILS WHICH ARE TO BE FILED BEFORE HIM AND AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE AND PR OPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 4 ITA NO.142/CTK/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 2010 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 /11 /2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 8 /11 /2016 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : BHABAGRAHI SAHOO, C/O JAY PRAKASH SAHA, ADVOCATE, KANTA NIKET, PLOT NO.1B/25, SECTOR - 11, CDA, CUTTACK 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD - 2, MADHUBAN, PARADEEP 3. THE CIT(A) , CUTTACK 4. CIT , CUTTACK 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//