M/s. Shashi Wines, Nani Daman V. The Income Tax Officer, Vapi Ward-4, Daman

ITA 1762/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1764 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: S H RI ANIL CHATURVEDI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER M/S. SHASHI WINES, AT: DALWADA, NANI DAMAN PAN: AAJFS5996G (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, VAPI, WD: 4, DAMAN (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI ALPESH PARMAR , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 28 - 04 - 2 016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 - 04 - 2 016 / ORDER P ER : S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 , AR IS ES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A), VALSAD DATED 25 - 03 - 2013 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A)/VLS/344/10 - 11 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . I T A NO . 1762 / A HD/20 13 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 I.T.A NO. 1762 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO M/S. SHASHI WINES VS. ITO 2 2. CASE CALLED TWICE. NONE APPEARS AT ASSESSEE S BEHEST. IT HAS FILED AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION DATED 2 7 - 04 - 2016 SEEKING FURTHER TIME ON THE GROUND THAT ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTAT IVE HAS EXPIRED. THERE IS NO BODY TO PURSUE THE SAME IN THE COURSE OF HEARING. WE ACCORDINGLY REJECT ASSESSEE S ADJOURNMENT PETITION. IT IS EVIDENT FROM A PERUSAL OF A CASE FILE THAT THE ASSESSEE S SOLE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND CHALLENGES ADDITION OF RS. 3,28,300/ - AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS IN STOCKS MADE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED 23 - 012 - 2010 AND AFFIRMED IN THE LOWER APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. WE FIND THAT THE LOWER APPELLATE H AS BEEN PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER AFTER STATING THAT FOUR NOTICES DATED 06 - 06 - 2011, 25 - 07 - 2011, 06 - 09 - 2011 AND 27 - 09 - 11 HAD BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOB ODY CAME PRESENT ON ITS BEHALF IN THE CORRESPONDING PROCEEDINGS. THIS HAS MADE THE CIT(A) TO CONFIRM THE IMPUGNED ADDITION EX - PARTE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTING THE LOWER APPELLATE FINDING UNDER CHALLENGE. HE SUBMITS THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE RIGHTLY MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION . IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS THROUGHOUT BEEN NEGLIGENT IN PURSUING ITS REMEDIES. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE FIL E . IT REVEALS THAT ALTHOUGH THE LD. C IT(A) STATES ABOUT FOUR NOTICES OF HEARING BEING ISSUED, THERE IS NO FINDINGS THAT ANY OF THEM STOOD SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE OR ITS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE . WE OBSERVE IN THESE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN THE LARGER INTEREST OF JUSTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVES ONE SUBST A N T I VE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE THE LOWER APPELLATE AUTHORITY. ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. WE DIR ECT I.T.A NO. 1762 /AHD/20 13 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO M/S. SHASHI WINES VS. ITO 3 LD. CIT(A) TO RE - FIX THE CASE AFRESH AND DECIDE IT AS PER LAW AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 29 - 04 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ( S. S. GODARA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 29 /04 /2016 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,