Indravadan H. Suratwala, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 5 (1), Pune

ITA 1690/PUN/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8382 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 54F

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE SINGLE MEMBER CASE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1690 and 1814/PUN/2019 Assessment Year :2006-07 and 2007-08 Indravadan H. Suratwala, 671 Shukrawar Peth, PUNE – 411 002 PAN: ADXPS4113 N :Appellant Vs. The Income-tax Officer, Ward 5(1) Pune : Respondent Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri M.G. Jasnani Date of Hearing : 29-07-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 11-08-2022 ORDER These assessee’s twin appeals for A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 are against separate orders of the CIT(A)-4 and CIT(A)-13, Pune dated 25-09-2019 and 14-06-2019; passed in case No. PN/CIT(A)-4/ITO Ward-5(1)/214/2014-15 and PN/CIT(A)-13/ITO Ward 5(1)/637/2014-15 involving proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in short “the Act” respectively. Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex parte. 3. I note with the able assistance coming from Revenue side and from a perusal of both these case files that the learned lower authorities have mainly invoked section 50-C capital gains in latter A.Y. 2007-08 followed by rejection of 54F deduction as well as cash deposits which stand added as unexplained u/s 68/69 of the Act in A.Y. 2006-07; respectively. 4. Mr. Jasnani could hardly rebut the clinching fact that the learned lower authorities had initiated the impugned reopening(s) against the assessee and thereafter framed these twin re-assessments adding long term capital gain in A.Y. 2007-08 without making a statutory reference to the D.V.O which has 2 ITA No. 1690 and 1814/PUN/2019 Indravardan H. Suratwala A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 been held as mandatory in Sunil Kumar Agarwal Vs. CIT (2014) 373 ITR 83 (Cal). This is indeed coupled with the fact that the CIT(A)’s orders under challenge in both these cases have been passed ex parte without even indicating any evidence of actual service of notices as per the respective tabulations in para 3 para 1 in both these assessment years. Faced with this situation, I deem it proper to restore the assessee’s instant twin appeals back to the CIT(A) for his fresh appropriate adjudication as per law within three effective opportunities of hearing. Ordered accordingly. 5. Delay of 84 days in filing assessee’s latter appeal in ITA No. 1814/PUN/2019 is condoned in light of fact the CIT(A)’s order in issue had been passed ex parte. 6. These assessee’s twin appeals are allowed for statistical purposes in above terms. A copy of this order be placed in respect case files. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 11 th August 2022. Sd/- (SATBEER SINGH GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Pune; Dated, this 11 th day of August 2022 Ankam Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The Pr. CCIT, Pune 4. The CIT(A)-4, Pune 5. The CIT(A)-13, PUne 5. The SMC Bench, ITAT Pune. 6. Guard File BY ORDER, Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Pune. 3 ITA No. 1690 and 1814/PUN/2019 Indravardan H. Suratwala A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 Date 1 Draft dictated on 27-07-2022 Sr.PS 2 Draft placed before author 29-07-2022 Sr.PS 3 Draft proposed and placed before the second Member JM/AM 4 Draft discussed/approved by second Member AM/JM 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS Sr.PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on 11-08-2022 Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order 11-08-2022 Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk 11-08-2022 Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order