M/s. Parshvanath Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. ITO-3(1)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 1931/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7854 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJESH DIXIT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, LH LHLH LH IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, AHMEDABAD LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH LOZJH OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA ] YS[KK LNL; ,OA EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW; EK/KQFERK JKW;] U;KF;D LNL; ] U;KF;D LNL; ] U;KF;D LNL; ] U;KF;D LNL; DS LE{KA DS LE{KA DS LE{KA DS LE{KA BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.1931/AHD/2017 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) M/S. PARSHVANATH PULSES PVT. LTD., (FORMERLY IT WAS PRAKASH PURE ESTABLES PVT. LTD.) 360/1896 GUJARAT HOUSING BOARD, BAPUNAGAR, AHMEDABAD 380 024 / VS. ITO, WARD 3(1)(1), PRATYAKSHKAR BHAWAN, AHMEDABAD. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AACCP 4320 R ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJESH DIXIT, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR. D.R. / DATE OF HEARING 05/07/2018 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13/07/2018 $% / O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE APPELLATE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-9, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT] VIDE APPEAL NO.CIT(A)- 9/164/ITO.WD-3(1)(2)/15-16 DATED 22.05.2017 ARISING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HERE-IN-AFTER ITA NO.1931/AHD/2017 M/S. PARSHVANATH PULSE S PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 2 - REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') DATED 30.03.2015 RELEVAN T TO ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW BY UPHOL DING THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. A.O. WITH REGARDS TO DEDUCTION U/S 14A. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE LAW, THE AO HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF TH E APPELLANT AT RS.1,83,550/-, INSTEAD OF RS.8,01,770/- RETURNED. A S SUCH AGGREGATE ADDITIONS OF RS.6,18,220/- STANDS BAD IN LAW AND REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 3. THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FA CTS OF THE CASE AND HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.5,1 9,016/- MERE ON ASSUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT USED T HE AMOUNTS OF LOAN FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. 4. THAT THE LEARNED AO HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE FA CTS OF THE CASE AND HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.99, 204/- OF THE SAME AMOUNT AS DISALLOWED OUT OF INTEREST. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE AO HAS ERRED IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143( 3). AS SUCH THE ASSESSMENT MAY PLEASE BE HELD AS BAD IN LAW AND ADDITION MADE THEREON MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 6. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO INTERPRE T THE LAW LIBERALLY IN VIEW OF FACT AND MATERIALITY BASED ON VARIOUS JUDGM ENTS. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR A MEND ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR DURING THE COURSE OF HEARIN G. 3. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE/ HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE NEITHER APPEARED NOR FILED ANY ADJOU RNMENT PETITION AT THE TIME OF HEARING. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT-A HAS PASSED EX-PARTE ORDER. HOWEVER, WE DECIDED TO PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE RAISED BY ITA NO.1931/AHD/2017 M/S. PARSHVANATH PULSE S PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 3 - THE ASSESSEE AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 4. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT( A) DECIDED THE APPEAL EX PARTE VIDE ORDER DATED 22.05.2017 DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE OR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE. AGAINST THE IMPUGNED EX PARTE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE US. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE MAT TER CAN BE SENT BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS PER THE PROVISION OF LAW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PRECEDI NG DISCUSSION WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT RAISE HIS POINTS OF CON TENTIONS BEFORE THE LD. CIT-A. IT IS ALSO FACT ON RECORD AS MENTIONED IN TH E CIT-A ORDER THAT VARIOUS NOTICES WERE ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT-A FOR TH E HEARING. BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO COMPLY THE SAME. HOWEVER IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY WE ARE INCLINED TO REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO T HE ASSESSEE. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD CO-OPERATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING AND ATTEND THE HEARING AS AND WHEN REQUI RED BY LD. CIT(A). HENCE, THIS GROUND OF ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO.1931/AHD/2017 M/S. PARSHVANATH PULSE S PVT. LTD. VS. ITO ASST.YEAR 2012-13 - 4 - 6. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13/07/2018 SD/- SD/- E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; E/KQFERK JKW; OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN OLHE VGEN U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; U;KF;D LNL; YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN YKS[KK LN L; L; L; L; (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/07/2018 PRITI YADAV, SR.PS !'# $#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. & '( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. ) () / THE CIT(A)-9, AHMEDABAD. 5. ,-. //'( , '(# , 12$&$ / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. .34 5 / GUARD FILE. % & / BY ORDER, , / //TRUE COPY// '/& () ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD