The ITO, Ward-14(3), Ahmedabad V. Shri Sanjay Anandray Bhatt, Ahmedabad

ITA 1714/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 171420514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 29-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 27-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DINESH SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIAAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 80C

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ././ ./ ITA NO. 1714/AHD/2011 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ITO, WARD-14(3), AHMEDABAD V/S. SHRI SANJAY ANANDRAY BHATT 97, PATEL SOCIETY, OPP. SAMRATNAGAR, NR. INDIRA BRIDGE, HANSOL, AHMEDABAD PAN : ACFPB 1144 H / // / (APPELLANT) ! ! ! ! / // / (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI DINESH SINGH, SR. DR. ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI S.N. DIVATIA, AR '# $ %&'/ // / DATE OF HEARING : 29/06/2015 () $ %&' / // / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/06/2015 *+ *+ *+ *+/ // / O R D E R PER G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S)-XXI, AHMEDABAD DATED 21.04.2011, PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09. 2. IN THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE, FOLLOWING GROUNDS WERE RAISED:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF RS.98,044/-, CASH CREDIT OF RS.17,14,600/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.7,45,000/- TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED ANY SPEAKING ORDER WH ICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATIO N THE GROUNDS AND LEGAL POSITION AS DISCUSSED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER DATED ITA NO. 1714/AHD/2011 ITO VS. SHRI SANJAY ANANDRAY BHATT FOR AY 2008-09 2 27.12.2010 AND NEITHER HAS GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO AO WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GR OUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 5. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A) MAY BE CANCELLED AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BE RESTORED. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EXPLANATI ON OR EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THAT, BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED ALL THE THREE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND A LSO PRODUCED THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES FOR EXPLAINING THE CASH DEPOSIT ED IN BANK, EVIDENCE OF LIC PAYMENT, ETC. THAT THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDI TIONS WITHOUT CALLING FOR ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE, T HEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE REVERSED AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER H AND, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, AS HE WAS TRAVELLING A LOT BECAUSE OF PERSONAL REASONS. HE, THEREFORE, ENTRUSTED THE ISSUE OF APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO HIS CHAR TERED ACCOUNTANT, SHRI MUKESH AJBANI. SHRI MUKESH AJBANI HAS ASSURED THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS ALSO FURNISHED THE DETAILS AND INFORMATION AS REQUIRED. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED T HAT NO FRESH EVIDENCE WAS IN FACT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AS ALL THE EVIDENCES WERE DULY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THOUGH HE H AS NOT CONSIDERED THE SAME. HE WAS FAIR ENOUGH TO ADMIT THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED A SPEAKING ORDER GIVING THE DETAILED REASON FOR DELET ING THE ADDITION AND SUMMARILY DELETED ALL THE ADDITIONS RELYING UPON TH E ASSESSEES WRITTEN ITA NO. 1714/AHD/2011 ITO VS. SHRI SANJAY ANANDRAY BHATT FOR AY 2008-09 3 SUBMISSIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS DULY EXPLAINED THE CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK, ABOUT TH E ELIGIBILITY OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80C AND THE CORRECTNESS OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISCLOSED. HE, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT EI THER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE SUSTAINED OR THE MATTER MAY BE RES TORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH. HE ALSO STATED THAT IN ALL PROBABILITY THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT EVEN IF TH E EVIDENCES ARE NOT AVAILABLE, THE ASSESSEE WOULD FURNISH ALL THE EVIDE NCES AND EXPLANATION AGAIN BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES, IN OUR OPINION, IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JU STICE IF THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS R ESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY, AND D IRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAR D TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL THE EVIDENC ES AS WELL AS EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO ALL THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WHICH WERE DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THERE AFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL PASS THE ORDER AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WI TH LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DEEMED TO BE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH JUNE, 2015 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.D. AGRAWAL) VICE-PRESIDENT AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/06/2015 BIJU T., PS ITA NO. 1714/AHD/2011 ITO VS. SHRI SANJAY ANANDRAY BHATT FOR AY 2008-09 4 *+ $ %, -*,% *+ $ %, -*,% *+ $ %, -*,% *+ $ %, -*,%/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. ! / THE RESPONDENT. 3. % '. / CONCERNED CIT 4. '. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. ,12 % , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 24 5# / GUARD FILE . *+' *+' *+' *+' / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY 6 66 6/ // / 7 7 7 7 ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD