M/s Sri Hanuman Cotton Ginners , Raichur V. Income Tax Officer Ward-1 , Raichur

ITA 1886/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5641 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR G MANOJ KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH R BUNG
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Agreed addition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH SMC A, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNANT MEMBER ITA NO.1886 (BANG) 2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014 15) M/S. SRI HANUMAN COTTON GINNERS, PLOT NO. P 1, P 2, SPL 3, HYDERABAD ROAD, INDUSTRIAL AREA, RAICHUR 584102. PAN. ABOFS9579F APPELLANT VS THE ITO, WARD 1, RAICHUR. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI YOGESH. R. BUNG, C. A. REVENUE BY : DR. G. MANOJ KUMAR, ADDL. CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 09-01-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-01-2018 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M.: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) GULBARGA DATED 14.07.2017 FOR A. Y. 2014 15 . 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS 8 GROUNDS. BU T THE EFFECTIVE GRIEVANCES ARE ONLY TWO REGARDING CONFIRMATION OF THE DISALLOW ANCE OF RS. 149,660/- OUT OF VEHICLE MAINTENANCE EXPENDITURE AND RS. 940,440/- O UT OF OTHER EXPENDITURES CLAIMED ON THIS BASIS THAT THESE ARE AGREED ADDITIO NS. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COPY OF A N AFFIDAVIT OF A PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM DATED 03.01.2018 IN WHICH IT IS STATE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SIGNED THE ORDER SHEET UNDER THIS IMPRESSION THAT H E IS NOT PERMITTED TO WRITE ANYTHING IN THE ORDER SHEET REGARDING HIS DISAGREEM ENT AND THE SIGNATURE ON THE PROCEEDING SHEET IS FOR AN EVIDENCE THAT THE HE ARING IS COMPLETED. HE DRAWN MY ATTENTION TO PARA 5.2 OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS PARA, IT IS STATED BY CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE THAT THE ADDITION WAS NOT MADE ON AGREED BASIS. HE SUBMI TTED THAT IN VIEW OF THIS ITA NO. 1886(BANG)2017 2 AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JU STICE, IT SHOULD BE HELD THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE OF AGREED ADDITION AND THEREFORE, THE MATTER SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERIT BY CIT (A). LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORT ED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I FIND THAT AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AS PER THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY CIT (A) ON THIS BASIS THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS AGREED FOR THESE ADDITIONS. AS PER THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE FIL ED BEFORE ME, IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SIGNED THE ORDER SHEET UNDER THIS IMPRESSION THAT HE IS NOT PERMITTED TO WRITE ANYTHING IN THE ORDER SHEET REGA RDING HIS DISAGREEMENT AND THE SIGNATURE ON THE PROCEEDING SHEET IS FOR EVIDEN CE THAT THE HEARING IS COMPLETED. I FEEL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE OUT A CASE THAT THIS IS NOT A CASE OF AGREED ADDITION AND THEREFORE, I FEEL THAT IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERIT INSTEAD OF REJECTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THIS BASIS THAT IT IS CASE OF AGREED AD DITION. HENCE, THE ORDER OF CIT (A) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE MATTER IS RESTO RED BACK TO CIT (A) FOR A DECISION ON MERIT BY WAY OF A SPEAKING AND REASONED ORDER AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. I DO NOT MAKE ANY COMMENT ON MERIT. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- ( A .K. GARODIA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE D A T E D : 11.01.2018 /MS/ ITA NO. 1886(BANG)2017 3 COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.