Pratap Kumar Mohanty, Puri V. ITO, Puri

ITA 158/CTK/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1146 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P R MOHANTY

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU, AM (THROUGH : VIDEO CONFERENCING) . / ITA NO. 158 /CTK/20 1 5 ( / A SSESSMENT Y EAR : 20 1 0 - 2 01 1 ) PRATAP KUMAR MOHANTY AT/PO: NIMAPADA, DISTRICT : PURI VS. ITO, PURI WARD, PURI PAN NO. : A BHPM 1652 J ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.R.MOHANTY, AR /REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHENDU DUTTA, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 05 / 1 1 /20 20 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 / 1 1 /20 20 / O R D E R PER L.P.SAHU, AM : TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20 .0 1 .201 5 , PASSED BY THE C IT(A) - 1 , BHUBANESWAR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 20 1 1 . 2. LD. AR BEFORE US HAS FILED AN APPLICATION DATED 05.11.2020 SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS , REQUIRED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL , COULD NOT BE COLL ECTED, WHICH, IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT A PLAUSIBLE ONE AS PER THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATIONS FILED EARLIER ALSO, WHICH ARE PLACED IN THE FILE , THEREFORE, WE REJECT THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION FILED BY THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE AND APPEAL IS HEARD FINALLY. ITA NO. 158 /CTK/201 5 2 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : - 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)L, BHUBANESWAR HAS NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION WITH REFERENCE TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. THE BANK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AND OTHER EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM WERE NOT DULY CONSIDERED. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED TIME AND AGAIN BOTH TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE THE CIT (APPEAL) THAT THERE WAS NO OUTSTANDING ADVA NCE/LOAN IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AS AMOUNT HAS BEEN SQUARED OFF DURING THE YEAR OF ASSESSMENT. TO THIS EXTENT THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT AND THE RECONCILIATION STATEMENT HAVE NOT BEEN PERUSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER THE INTERES T AMOUNTING TO RS.60076/ - HAS BEEN COOKED UP BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY CALCULATING THE AMOUNT PAYABLE AS INTEREST IS PURELY BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. 3. THAT NON - INCLUSION OF RS.23,97,749/ - IN THE ASSETS OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT WER E EXPLAINED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT (APPEAL). THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT WAS BRUSHED ASIDE. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT FURTHER URGES THAT THE HE MAY BE GRANTED OPPORTUNITY TO ADDED OR SUPPLEMENT SUBMISSION IN EACH OCCASION AND DURING THE COURSE OF PERSONAL HEARING. 4 . AT THE OUTSET, D URING THE COURSE OF HEARING , LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT( A) HAS PASSED ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE BANK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT AND OTHER EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD . AR SUBMITTED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE PROVIDED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) . 5 . ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE RESTORED . 6 . ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED IN THE RECORD OF THE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT THE ITA NO. 158 /CTK/201 5 3 CIT(A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , WE RESTORE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) T O PASS ORDER AFRESH AND T HE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PLACE THE BANK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM ACCORDINGLY . NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE PROVIDED REAS O NABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DI RECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE CIT(A) POSITIVELY FOR EARLY DISPOSAL OF THE CASE. THUS, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 18 / 1 1 / 20 20 . S D/ - ( C.M.GARG ) S D/ - (L.P.SAHU) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 18 / 1 1 /20 20 PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA, SR.P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , /ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - PRATAP KUMAR MO HANTY AT/PO: NIMAPADA, DISTRICT : PURI 2. / THE RESPONDENT - ITO, PURI WARD, PURI 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//