Shreepati Villas Pvt.Ltd., Bardoli V. ITO WARD -2(1)(2), Surat

ITA 184/SRT/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1847 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 30-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B P K PANDA
• Assessee Lawyers: shaunak Zaveri
• Keywords: Bogus Share capital; Unexplained expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause
• Section: 68; 144; 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI.KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . . ./ I.T.A. NO.184/SRT/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 SHREEPATI VILLAS PVT. LTD, 243/5, SHASTRI ROAD, OPP. SHISHU MANDIR, BARDOLI, SURAT [PAN: AARCS 8191 G] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(1)(2), SURAT. APPELLANT /RESPONDENT / DATE OF HEARING: 20.02.2019 /PRONOUNCEMENT ON: 21.02.2019 /O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-2, SURAT DATED 07.09.2017 PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEALS, AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL EX-PARTE AND AS SUCH THE ORDER PASSED IS BAD IN LAW AS BEING AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS ON MERITS THEREBY CONVENIENTLY IGNORING ALL THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES THAT WERE FORMING PART OF THE RECORDS BEFORE HIM. /ASSESSEE BY SHRI SHAUNAK K. ZAVERI CA /REVENUE BY SHRI B.P.K. PANDA LD. SR.DR 3. ON FACTS AND IN LAW AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT DEALT WITH THE MERITS OF THE CASE AND HAS ERRED BY SUSTAINING ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A.O AGGREGATING TO RS.6,75,20,071/- AS UNDER: A. UNEXPLAINED SHARE CAPITAL OF RS.1,00,000/- B. UNSECURED LOAN U/S 68 OF RS.73,96,000/- C. UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF LAND OF RS.4,35,00,000/- D. DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE OF RS.64,84,071/- E. PURCHASE OF STOCK IN TRADE OF RS.1,00,40,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES UNDER DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE ACT AND THEREBY CONVENIENTLY REJECTING ALL SUPPORTIVE EXTERNAL EVIDENCES WHICH WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAS ERRED IN PASSING ORDER U/S 144 R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLATE FURTHER CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR WITHDRAW ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HEREIN AND TO SUBMIT SUCH STATEMENTS, DOCUMENTS AND PAPERS AS MAY BE CONSIDERED NECESSARY EITHER AT OR BEFORE THE APPEAL HEARING. 3 . AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS EX-PARTE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. 4 . LD. DR OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHO POINTED OUT THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN, TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BEFORE. WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT (A) IN PARA 5.1.1 OBSERVED AS UNDER: THE APPELLATE WAS PROVIDED MANY OPPORTUNITIES AS MENTIONED EARLIER BUT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. THE APPELLANT WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITY ON 30.03.2017, 31.07.2017 AND 30.08.2017. THESE NOTICES INCLUDING THE FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IN APPEAL MEMO (FORM NO. 35). THE APPELLANT WAS PROVIDED WITH 3 OPPORTUNITIES TO FURNISH THE DETAILS BUT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. SR. NO DATE OF NOTICE DATE OF COMPLIANCE REASONS FOR ADJOURNMENT 1. 20.03.2017 30.03.2017 NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE 2. 31.07.2017 30.08.2017 NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. NOTICE UNSERVED AS PER REMARKS BY POSTAL AUTHORITIES. 3. 09.08.2017 30.08.2017 FINAL SHOW CAUSE WAS ISSUED BUT NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. 6 . FROM THE AFORESAID, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN AT LEAST THREE OPPORTUNITIES BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON VARIOUS DATES, BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON-APPEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS ON THE RECORD AND SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIES WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE GROUNDS TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A) FOR THE DECISION AFRESH SUBJECT TO A COST OF RS.2000/- IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 7 . THE ASSESSEE WOULD COLLECT THIS ORDER AND APPEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) SUO MOTO, THEREAFTER, LD.CIT(A) AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH. 8 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.02.2019 SD/- SD/- (O P MEENA) (KUL BHARAT) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( JUDICIAL MEMBER) / SURAT, DATED : 21 ST FEB, 2019/ SUBHANKAR SAMANTA, PS COPY OF ORDER SENT TO- ASSESSEE/AO/PR. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT (DR)/GUARD FILE OF ITAT. BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SURAT