Shri Satishbhai Shantilal Mehta, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Surat

ITA 1714/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9074 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 02-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 04-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., , BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1714/AHD/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) SATISHBHAI SHANTILAL MEHTA 202, MALBAR HILL COMPLEX ATHWALINES SURAT / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-5(4) SURAT $ ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAZPM 6918 M ( $' / APPELLANT ) .. ( ($' / RESPONDENT ) $') / APPELLANT BY : MR. M.K. PATEL, AR ($'*) / RESPONDENT BY : MR.PRASOON KABRA, SR.DR +,*- / DATE OF HEARING 02/03/2017 ./0*- / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08/ 03/2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-I, SURAT [CIT(A) IN SHORT] DATED 03/03/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2008-09. ITA NO.1714/AHD /2014 SATISHBHAI SHANTILAL MEHTA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 2 - 2. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.15,01,188/- UNDER S.69A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT' ). 3. THE LD.AR MR. M.K.PATEL AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ASSAILING THE ASSESSMENT O RDER HAS NOT BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE CIT(A) ON MERITS. THE LD.AR SUB MITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE MER ELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ATTENDED BEFORE THE CIT(A ) NOR DID THE ASSESSEE FILED ANY REPLY IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPEAL. THE CIT( A) THEREFORE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. TH E LD.AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF GUJARAT THEMIS BIOSYN LTD. VS. JCIT 74 ITD 339. 4. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). WE FIN D THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED FOR DEFAULT IN M AKING REPRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS CLEARLY IN VIOLATION OF EXPRESS PROVISION S OF SECTION 250(6) WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT( A) ARE REQUIRED TO STATE THE POINTS ARISING IN THE APPEAL, THE DECISIO N OF THE AUTHORITY THEREON ITA NO.1714/AHD /2014 SATISHBHAI SHANTILAL MEHTA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 3 - AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION. THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE OF THE PROVISIONS IS THAT SUCH ORDERS ARE SUBJECT TO FURTH ER APPEAL TO THE TRIBUNAL. THE CIT(A) IS BOUND TO PASS SPEAKING ORDER ON MERIT S TO ENABLE A PARTY TO KNOW PRECISE POINTS DECIDED IN HIS FAVOUR OR AGA INST HIM. THE SCOPE OF SECTION 250(6) IN THE MATTER OF PASSING ORDERS I S EXPLICIT. THE PHRASEOLOGY SET OUT IN SECTION 250(6) DOES NOT YIEL D ANY SPACE TO SHUN AWAY FROM DECIDING THE CASE ON MERIT. THEREFORE, AC TION OF THE CIT(A) IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF P ROSECUTION IS NOT BACKED BY AUTHORITY OF LAW. 5. FOR THE REASONS INDICATED ABOVE, WE SET ASIDE TH E IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OF T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. SINCE THE MATTER IS QUITE OLD , THE CIT(A) SHALL ENDEAVOUR TO PASS APPELLATE ORDER ON MERITS AT THE EARLIER POINT OF TIME BUT NOT LATER ON FOUR MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF SERVI CE OF THIS ORDER. WE ARE MINDFUL OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FRUST RATED VARIOUS ATTEMPTS OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO SEEK REPRESENTATIO N ON THE APPEAL. HOWEVER, IT WOULD JUST AND FAIR TO GRANT ANOTHER OP PORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE IN QUEST FOR JUSTICE AND FOR FAIR APPRAISAL OF THE ISSUES INVOLVED. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO CO-OPERATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITHOUT ANY DELINQUENCY IN THIS REGARD. ANY DEFAULT IN COMPLIANCE WILL BE AT HIS OWN RISK. ITA NO.1714/AHD /2014 SATISHBHAI SHANTILAL MEHTA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2008-09 - 4 - 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN TERMS OF DIRECTIONS NOTED A BOVE. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 08/ 03 /2017 SD/- SD/- (..) ( ) ( S.S. GODARA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 08/ 03 /2017 4..+,.+../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. $' / THE APPELLANT 2. ($' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 567- 8- / CONCERNED CIT 4. 8- ( ) / THE CIT(A)-I, SURAT 5. 9:-+67 , 670 , 5 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <, / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, (9-- //TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD