Smt. Divya Nandlal Tekwani, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Surat

ITA 1781/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1343 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B P K
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, C IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO.1781/AHD/2013 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-2010 SMT.DIVYA NANDLAL TEKWANI SINDHI BHAVAN RAMNAGAR RANDER ROAD SURAT. PAN : AEOPT 5198 N VS ITO, WARD - 3(2) SURAT. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI B.P.K. PANDA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 01/06/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 02/06/2016 $%/ O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-IV, SURAT DATED 31.3.2013 PASSED IN THE A SSTT.YEAR 2009-10. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOUR GROUNDS OF AP PEAL, BUT HER SOLITARY GRIEVANCE IS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.6,50,478/- WHICH WAS ADDED BY THE AO WITH THE AID OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 3. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE OF HEARING, LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE, WHICH WAS NOT GRANTED BY THE BENCH, THEREFORE, WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD.DR, WE HAVE GONE ITA NO.1781/AHD/2013 2 THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY AND PROCEEDED TO DECID E THE APPEAL EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT. 4. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.2.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOM E AT RS.2,52,236/-. HER CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AND N OTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 20.8.2010, WHICH WA S DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS REMAINED DORMANT. THE AO HAD TAKEN UP AN INQUIRY IN THE MON TH OF AUGUST, 2011. IT EMERGES OUT THAT ON 14.11.2011 AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO, AND SUBMITTED COPY OF THE CASH BOOK. FROM THE COPY OF THE CASH BOOK, THE LD.AO FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN IN CASH FROM 36 PARTIES AGG REGATING TO RS.6,50,478/-. THE AO HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. THE DETAILS WITH REGARD TO THE CASH TAKEN FROM 36 PERSONS REFLECTED IN THE CASH BOOK WERE TO BE SUBMITTED BY 24.11.2011. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SUBMIT DETAILS, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HAS PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 26.12.2011. HE M ADE ADDITION OF RS.6,50,478/-. 5. ON APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ISSUED NOTICED THRO UGH SPEED POST ON THREE OCCASIONS, WHICH WERE NOT RESPONDED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD.FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS D ISMISSED THE APPEAL, BECAUSE NO NEW EVIDENCE WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE. 6. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE TIME LAG BETWEEN THE INQUIRY INITIATED BY THE A O AND THE CONCLUSION OF THAT INQUIRY WAS VERY SHORT. FACT OF RECEIPT OF CASH CAME TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO ON SUBMISSION OF CASH BOOK, WHICH WAS SUBMITTED ON 14.11.2011. THE EVIDENCE WAS TO BE PRODUCED BY 24. 11.2011 IN JUST 10 DAYS. IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY THE AO. ITA NO.1781/AHD/2013 3 THERE IS NO EXPLANATION AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE AS TO WHY SHE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE CIT(A), BUT, TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I.E. TIME PERIOD GRANTED BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN HER POSITION DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE BOTH THE ORDERS AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERT Y TO SUBMIT ANY DETAIL IN SUPPORT OF HER STAND. 7. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY US WILL NOT IMPAIR OR I NJURE THE CASE OF THE AO AND WILL NOT CAUSE ANY PREJUDICE TO THE DEFENCE/EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 2 ND JUNE, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER