Mr.Rajan Chindan Anikkadi, Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer, Bangalore

ITA 1626/BANG/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5449 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RENUGADEVI
• Assessee Lawyers: B T SHETTY
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund
• Section: 40A(3)

Judgement Text

-IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1626/BANG/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 SHRI. RAJAN CHINDAN ANIKADI, B-192, METLICA PRESSINGS, 5 TH MAIN, PEENYA 2 ND STAGE, BENGALURU-560058. PAN : ABXPR5194E VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 6(2)(3), BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. B. T. SHETTY, CA REVENUE BY : SMT. P. RENUGADEVI, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 25.4.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.4.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF CIT(A), INTERALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO. 1626/BANG/2016 PAGE 2 OF 4 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [' CIT(A)'] ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DISMISS ING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIO NS AND DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT G IVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO REPRESENT HIS CASE FURTHER. 3 . THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN NOT APPRECIATING THE MERITS OF THE CASE OF THE A PPELLANT IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF (I) RS 18,63,402 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE WITHOUT CON SIDERING THE COMPLETE CASH BOOK AND EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED T O THE CIT(A). (II) RS 74,122 AS UNEXPLAINED SUNDRY EXPENSES FOR THE BA LANCES PAYABLE TO SUNDRY CREDITORS WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE PARTIES DURING THE EARLIER AND THE SUBS EQUENT FINANCIAL YEARS. (III) RS 4,84,105 AS DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE OF SUNDRY CRED ITORS WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATION OF FACTS. (IV) RS 26,70,000 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS WIT HOUT APPRECIATING THE SOURCE OF FUNDS WHICH WAS EXPLAINED AND WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY. 4. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ASALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS 1,60,000 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE BUSINESS EXPED IENCY UNDER WHICH A PART OF THE PAYMENT TO THE SUNDRY CREDITORS WAS MAD E IN CASH AND ANOTHER PART WAS MADE THROUGH CHEQUE. 5. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 23 4B OF RS 5,90,313 AND UNDER SECTION 234C OF RS 1,107. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO AND / OR TO ALTER, AMEND, RESCIND, MODIFY, THE GROUNDS HEREIN ABOVE OR PRODUCE FURTHER DOCUMENTS BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL. ITA NO. 1626/BANG/2016 PAGE 3 OF 4 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT A FFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND DISPOSED THE APPEAL SUMMARILY HA VING RECORDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED TO PROSECUTE ITS APPE AL. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO IN VITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE CIT(A) IN WHICH IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED THAT ATTENDANCE IS NOT NECESSARY AND WRIT TEN SUBMISSIONS MAY BE FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE APPEAL CAN BE DISPOSED OFF. RELYING UPON THE CONTENTS OF THE NOT ICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE DETAILS BUT THE CIT(A) DID NOT TAKE COGNI ZANCE OF THE SAME AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE ASSES SEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. COPY OF THE NOTICE ISSU ED IS PLACED ON RECORD. 4. THE LEARNED DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDERS O F THE CIT(A). 5. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES, IN THE LIGHT OF THE NOTICE FROM THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND THAT WHEN CIT(A) HAS ITSELF MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE THAT ATTENDANCE IS NOT NECESSARY AND ASSESSEE MAY FILE THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THEN HE SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS. BUT HE DID NOT DO SO. HE IGNORED THE WRI TTEN SUBMISSIONS AND DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL HAVING OBSERVED THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING ITS APPEAL. WE THEREFORE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE A SSESSEE. WE THEREFORE ITA NO. 1626/BANG/2016 PAGE 4 OF 4 SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE M ATTER TO HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER A FFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH APRIL, 2017. SD/- SD/- (A. K. GARODIA) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE. DATED: 28 TH APRIL, 2017. /NSHYLU/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.