ITO, Kota V. MUKHWINDER SINGH, MUMBAI

ITA 156/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2148 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM ROY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 156/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(3), KOTA. CUKE VS. MUKHWINDER SINGH, 121, RIDDHI ARCADE, PLOT NO. 857, C/D STEEL MARKET, KALAMBOLI, NAVI MUMBAI. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: BLMPS 1149 A VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. POONAM ROY (DCIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: NONE (AS PER LD. DR, ASSESSEE REFUSED TO TAKE NOTICE OF HEARING) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 03/08/2017 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04/08/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANATES FRO M THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), KOTA DATED 13/12/2016 FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09, WHEREIN THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN SOLE GROUND OF APPEAL, WHICH IS AG AINST DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 37,81,458/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 42,01,620/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ITA 156/JP/2017_ ITO VS MUKHWINDER SINGH 2 2. NONE ATTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD D R WAS HEARD. SHE PLEADED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REBUT THE PLEADINGS MADE BEFOR E HIM BY AR OF ASSESSEE. HE HAD CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS WHICH WE RE NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HENCE SHE PLEA DED TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE NOTICE WAS TO BE SERVED BY THE LD DR AND FROM THE RECORDS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE NOTICE SENT AT THE ADDRESS AT 121, RIDDHI ARCAD E, PLOT NO. 857, C/D STEEL MARKET, KALAMBOLI, NAVI MUMBAI-410218. FROM T HE RECORD, IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ICICI BANK LIMITED, BANDRA (E) HAVI NG ACCOUNT NO. 018401516291 OF RS. 42,01,620/-. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER PROVIDED VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT TURN ED UP TO DISCHARGE HIS STATUTORY OBLIGATION. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZ ED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING THAT FROM PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN QUESTION FOR F.Y. 2007-08, WHICH WAS MORE THAT 6 TO 7 YEARS EARLIER PE RIOD FROM THE ACTUAL PASSING OF THE ORDER, CASH DEPOSITED WERE IN SMALL TRANCHES OF ITA 156/JP/2017_ ITO VS MUKHWINDER SINGH 3 LESS THAN RS. 50,000/-. HE HELD THAT NO PURPOSE OTH ER THAN SMALL BUSINESS COULD BE SERVED BY MAKING THESE TYPES OF D EPOSITS. IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE APPELLANT IS DOING THE TRUCKING BUS INESS AND ESTIMATED THE PROFIT @ 10%. HE HAD RELIED ON THE SUBMISSIONS M ADE BEFORE HIM IN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN REPRESENTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR A NY DETAILS WERE FILED. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) SHOWS THAT SHRI SHARAT JA IN, C.A. ATTENDED BEFORE HIM AND MADE SUBMISSIONS. THUS, IT IS CLEAR T HAT NEW SUBMISSIONS/EVIDENCES WERE SUBMITTED AND CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THESE SUBMISSIONS/ DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY SH RI SHARAT JAIN, AR OF THE ASSESSEE, WERE NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT PROVIDED AN OPPORTUNITY, T HUS THERE WAS CLEAR VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THEREFORE, AFTER CONS IDERING ALL ASPECTS AND AFTER HEARING THE LD DR, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE REVENUE. HE HAD CONSIDERED THE INFORMATION/EVIDENCE S, WHICH WERE NEVER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THERE FORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, I FIND IT APPROPRIATE TO RES TORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ITA 156/JP/2017_ ITO VS MUKHWINDER SINGH 4 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/08/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 04 TH AUGUST, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE WARD-1(3), KOTA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- SHRI MUKHWINDER SINGH, NAVI MUMBAI. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 156/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR