Shri Yogesh Roshanlal Gupta, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(3), Ahmedabad

ITA 1790/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1825 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SONIA KUMAR
• Keywords: Salary income

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHM EDABAD , (BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M. & SHRI KUL BHARA T, J.M.) ( , !'# $ , ! %& ) ITA NO. 1790/AHD/2012 (ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 2009-10) SHRI YOGESH ROSHANLAL GUPTA A-3, NR. KALIKADHAM, NR. MOTERA STADIUM, SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD - 380005 VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), AHMEDABAD PAN NO. ABKPG1760G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SONIA KUMAR, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 28-03 -2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06 -04-2016 ( )/ ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-XI, AHMEDABAD, DATED 15.06.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER: 3. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE HAVIN G INCOME FROM SALARY, INCOME FROM TEXTILE BUSINESS AND HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME. T HE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ON 21.04.2009 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME OF RS.4,15,350/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER A SSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 15.12.2011 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WA S DETERMINED AT RS.55,80,820/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESS EE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE ITA NO.1790/AHD/12 A.Y. 2009-10 (SHRI YOGESH ROSHA NLAL GUPTA VS. ITO) 2 LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 15.06.2012 DISMISSE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS N OW IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 13,85 ,4507- FOR THE DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE SAVING ACCOUNTS WITH BANKS DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- SR. NO. NAME OF THE BANK AMOUNT IN RS. 1. BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI 13,85,450/- 2. SBI, AHMEDABAD. 10,21,010/- 3. KMB AHMEDABAD 27,59,010/- TOTAL 51,65,470/- 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT HENCE THE SAME BEING AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATU RAL JUSTICE REQUIRES TO CANCELLED. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT ON ACCOUNT OF UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES T HE APPELLANT COULD NOT ATTEND THE HEARING AND EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FILED. FROM THE RECORD S, WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE NOTICE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS SENT THROUGH RE GISTERED POST ON 09.02.2016 AND SINCE, THERE IS NO APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE , WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL EX PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE, ON THE BASIS OF DETAILS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O . NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.13,85,450/- IN HIS SAVINGS BA NK ACCOUNTS WITH BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI, RS.10,21,010/- IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH S.B.I., AHMEDABAD AND RS.27,59,010/- IN HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH KOT AK MAHINDRA BANK LTD., MUMBAI. A.O. NOTED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY STATEMENTS OR EVIDENCES WITH RESPECT TO THE AFORESAID CASH DEPOSITS. HE, THEREF ORE, CONSIDERED THE AGGREGATE ITA NO.1790/AHD/12 A.Y. 2009-10 (SHRI YOGESH ROSHA NLAL GUPTA VS. ITO) 3 AMOUNTING OF RS.51,65,470/- IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED THE SAME U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, MA INLY FOR THE REASON THAT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. HE, THEREFORE, UPHELD THE ORDER OF A.O. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE I S NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7.1 BEFORE US, LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF A.O . AND LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. ON PERUSING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) BY A VERY CRYPTIC AND NON-SPEAKING ORDER HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE BY UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE LD. CIT(A ) MUST PASS A REASONED ORDER WHICH SHOULD REFLECT APPLICATION OF MIND ON THE ISSUES/PO INTS RAISED BEFORE HIM. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF VODAFONE ES SAR LTD VS. DRP, REPORTED IN (2011) 196 TAXMAN 0423, HAS HELD THAT WHEN A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY DEALS WITH A LIS, IT IS OBLIGATORY ON ITS PART TO ASCRIBE COGENT AND GERMANE REASONS AS THE SAME IS THE HEART AND SOUL OF THE MATTER AND FURTHER THE SA ME ALSO FACILITATES APPRECIATION WHEN THE ORDER IS CALLED IN QUESTION BEFORE THE SUP ERIOR FORUM. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUFFERS FROM LACK OF REASONING AND IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER. WE, THEREFORE, CONSIDER IT A PPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CI T(A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUES AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND AFTER ALLOWING SU FFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AS MANDATED BY PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PROMPTLY FURNISH ALL T HE REQUIRED DETAILS CALLED FOR BY ITA NO.1790/AHD/12 A.Y. 2009-10 (SHRI YOGESH ROSHA NLAL GUPTA VS. ITO) 4 LD. CIT(A). IN CASE, ASSESSEE FAILS TO FURNISH REQ UIRED DETAILS, LD. CIT(A) WILL BE FREE TO PROCEED AND DECIDE THE MATTER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISIO N TO RESTORE THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A), WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING THE OTHER GR OUNDS OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 06 - 04 - 2016 . SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 06/04/2016 TRUE COPY S K SINHA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD