M/s Nataraj Granites , Bangalore V. Income Tax officer ward-6(2)(4), Bangalore

ITA 1606/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5607 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 26-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR G MANOJ KUMAR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC B, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO.1606 (BANG) 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 13) M/S. NATRAJ GRANITES, NO. 14/81, KUNIGAL ROAD, KEMPALINGANAHALLI POST, NELAMANGALA, BANGALORE 560011. PAN. AAFFN0696Q APPELLANT VS THE ITO, WARD 6 (2) (4), BANGALORE. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SMT. PRATIBHA R, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : DR. G. MANOJ KUMAR, ADDL. CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 09-01-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-01-2018 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) 6 BANGALORE DATED 03.04.2017 FOR A. Y. 2012 13. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED 7 GROUNDS BUT THE EFFECT IVE GRIEVANCE IS ONLY ONE ABOUT ADDITION MADE OF RS. 20,16,419/- IN RESPECT O F SUNDRY CREDITORS. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER PARA 8 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (A), IT IS STATED BY HIM THAT NO CONFI RMATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED. SHE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT BECA USE ALL CONFIRMATIONS WERE SUBMITTED AND COPY OF SAME ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PAP ER BOOK ON PAGES 2 TO 28 OF THE PAPER BOOK. SHE POINTED OUT THAT PAN IS ALSO MENTIONED IN ALL THESE CONFIRMATIONS. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS VERY CRYPTIC AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, IT SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER MA Y BE RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE ITA NO. 1606(BANG)2017 2 FOR A FRESH DECISION BY WAY OF A SPEAKING AND REASO NED ORDER. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT IN PARA 8 OF HIS ORDER, IT IS STATED BY CIT (A) THAT NO CONFIRMATION HAS BEEN FUR NISHED. BUT I FIND THAT THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT BECAUSE IT IS SUBMITTED BEFORE ME THAT ALL CONFIRMATIONS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE AO & CIT (A) AND COPY OF SAME ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALSO. I ALSO FIND TH AT PAN IS ALSO MENTIONED IN ALL THESE CONFIRMATIONS. I ALSO FIND THAT THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS VERY CRYPTIC AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO HIS FILE FOR A FRESH DECISION BY WAY OF A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- ( A .K. GARODIA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE D A T E D : 11.01.2018 /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.