ARCHANA PANDEY, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 15(2)(2), MUMBAI

ITA 1513/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 75549 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: I
• Next Hearing Date: 18-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: M SUBRAMANIAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

I IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL I BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JM ./I.T.A. NO.1513/M/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 2007 ) MRS. ARCHANA PANDEY, H2, BALKRISHNA, 142/6 JAI PRAKASH ROAD, ANDHERI (W), MUMBAI - 400053. / VS. ITO, WARD 15(2)(2), MUMBAI. ./ PAN : AMHPP 5128 R ( / APPELLANT) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI O.P. SINGH, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 18.2.2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.2.2014 / O R D E R PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 21.2.2011 IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) - 26, MUMBAI DATED 7.12.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 2007. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS WHICH READ AS UNDER: 1. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2006 - 2007. THE CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER SECTION 143(2). BUT SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF THE COUNTRY, SHE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF SCRUTINY PROCEEDINGS AND HENCE DID NOT ATTEND THE SAME. HENCE, THE AO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT U/S 144 BY ADDING IN AN AD - HOC MANNER A SUM OF RS. 6,00,000/ - INVESTED IN MUTUAL FUNDS, WITHOUT FURNISHING A COPY OF THE AIR AND TAXED THE SAME ACCORDINGLY. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT THE AO WAS CORRECT IN PASSING IN EX - PARTE ORDER UNDER SECTION 144 . 2. THE LD CIT (A) ERRED IN PASSING AN EX - PARTE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HER CASE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 97,170/ - . 2 ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT THE ASSESSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.6,97,200/ - . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AO NOTI CED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME FROM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES OF RS. 51,489/ - AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS. 45,681/ - TOTALING TO RS. 97,170/ - . BUT, AS PER THE AIR INFORMATION REPORT, DURING THE AY UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE PURC HASED VARIOUS MUTUAL FUNDS AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,00,000/ - . DUE TO NON AVA ILABILITY OF DETAILS FOR SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 6 LACKS, AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 6,00,000/ - U/S 69 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLAT E AUTHORITY. 4. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT THE CASE. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE SAME AND RELYING ON THE DECISIONS OF THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULT IPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. VS. CIT [38 ITD 320(DEL)] AND OTHER DECISIONS, CIT (A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE MENTIONED GROUNDS. 5. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, SHRI M. SUBRAMANIAN, LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 17.2.2018 UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 ALONG WITH PAPER BOOK CONSISTING OF 2 PAGES AND MENTIONED THAT THE SAID PAPER S CONSTITUTES BANK ACCOUNT EXTRACTS OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, HE BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT ENTRIES IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNTS AND MENTIONED THAT APPRECIATING THE SAID ENTRIES WILL GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THEREFORE, IT IS REQUESTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL MAY CONSIDER AND ADMIT THE SAME. LD COUNSEL PRAYED FOR ADMITTING THE SAID PAPER BOOK (2 PAGES) AND REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE FILES OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD DR HAS NOT OBJECTED THE SAID PRAYER OF THE LD COUNSEL AND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE LETTER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID PAPERS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENTS ARE HELPFUL IN EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AND 3 ARE EVIDENCES INTRICATELY CONNECTED TO THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, WE ADMIT THE SAID PAPER BOOK, CONTAINING 2 PAPERS, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILES OF THE AO TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GRANTING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED THE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUROSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH FEBRUARY, 2014 . S D / - S D / - (SANJAY GARG ) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 18 .2.2014 . . ./ OKK , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI