PRADIPSINH RAVUBHA PARMAR, SURENDRANAGAR V. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4, SURENDRANAGAR

ITA 196/RJT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0375 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 69; 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No . 196/RJT/2023 (Asse ssme nt Year: 2 011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Pradipsinh Ravubha Parmar, Vasnipa Muli Village, Muli Surendranagar-363510 Vs. The ITO, Ward-4, Surendranagar थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AOYPP8600F (अपीलाथ /Appellant) ( यथ /Respondent) नधा रतीक ओरसे / Assessee by : None राज वक ओरसे/Revenue by : Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. D.R. स ु नवाईक तार ख/ Date of Hearing : 05/08/2024 घोषणाक तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 07/08/2024 आदेश/ORDER PER DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JM: Captioned appeal filed by the Assessee for A.Y. 2011-12, is directed against the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi/the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),(in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’), dated 15.05.2023 under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’). 2. The Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:- I.T.A No. 196/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Pradipsinh Ravubha Parmar vs. ITO 2 “1. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in not granting adequate opportunity of being heard, such opportunity of being heard should have been granted to me. 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.5,68,285/- made by AO in respect of cash deposited to bank considering the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such addition is requested to be deleted. 3. The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs.26,94,386/- made by AO considering the same as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, such addition is requested to be deleted. Your appellant prays for leave to add, to alter and/or to amend the above ground before the final hearing of the appeal.” 3. That the assessee is doing the business for the A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee filed return declaring income of Rs. 1,58,790/- as brokerage income. It was reported in NMSI Textnet Portal that the assessee has deposited cash amounting to Rs. 10,54,000/- in saving bank account and it was also alleged that the no return was filed for A.Y. 2011-12. After detailed scrutiny of the details furnished by the assessee, the assessment completed u/s. with the following observations:- “Subject to the above remarks and after considering all the details available on record, the total income of the assessee is computed as under. The assessee has declared total income Rs. 1,58,790/- on account of brokerage income. However, as discussed in assessment same is not proved and hence not accepted and return income is treated as Nil. Cash deposit in bank account treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 as discussed in assessment order. Rs. 5,68,285 Cheque deposit in bank account treated as unexplained investment u/s 69 as discussed in assessment order. Rs. 26,94,386 Total income assessed Rs.32,62,670 Agriculture income as worked out in assessment Rs. 3,88,215 I.T.A No. 196/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Pradipsinh Ravubha Parmar vs. ITO 3 order for rate purpose Aggregate income Rs 36,50,885 4. That feeling aggrieved by the order dated 19-12-2019 of income tax officer, the assessee filed an appeal in the office of the ld. CIT(A). That the ld. CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal with the following observations:- “6.20 Same is the case even during the course of appellate proceedings, wherein after availing sufficient time and adequate number of opportunities of being heard also, the assessee has not made any written submissions nor filed any confirmation letters from the loan creditors from whom he claimed to have received loans for the purpose of making cheque deposits in the bank account to the extent of Rs. 26,94,386/-. Under the circumstances, in the absence of any submissions or material evidence forthcoming from the assessee, I am of the considered opinion that the AO has rightly treated Rs.26,94,386/- as unexplained investment u/s.69 of the Act. Accordingly, I don't want to interfere with the order of the AO. Thus, the ground of appeal raised by the assessee on this issue is dismissed. (C) MISTAKE IN NOT CONSDIERING THE RETURNED INCOME OF Rs.1,58,790/-: 6.21 Before parting, I would like to highlight the fact that, while computing the total income of the assessee, the AO committed an inadvertent mistake in not considering the total income admitted by the assessee of Rs.1,58,790/- as disclosed in the belated return of income filed on 05.12.2018 in response to notice issued u/s.148 of the Act dated 27.03.2018 (supra). In view of this, while giving effect to this order, the AO is directed to re-compute the total income of the assessee by including the returned income of Rs.1,58,790/-. 7.0 In the result, the appeal filed against the order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the AY 2011-12 is dismissed.” 5. Feeling aggrieved by the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 15-05- 2023, the assessee has filed appeal before this Tribunal. I.T.A No. 196/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Pradipsinh Ravubha Parmar vs. ITO 4 6. Nobody has appeared on behalf of the assessee. But the ld. A.R. moved an application for adjournment on the ground that her mother got fractured, however the matter has been proceeded on the basis of materials available on record. 7. On the contrary, the ld. D.R. appeared and submitted that five opportunities were given to the assessee but there were no responses by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) was nothing alternate but to decide the matter ex-parte on the basis of materials available on record. The ld. D.R. further submitted that the order of the ld. CIT(A) has duly considered the order of the A.O. whereby the A.O. has allowed credit for agricultural income to the extent of Rs. 3,88,215/- and also acknowledged the gross agricultural receipt of Rs. 6,47,025/- and deduction of Rs. 98,000/- was allowed towards cash withdrawal. However, the ld. D.R. has no objection if the matter is remanded to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the case on merit. 8. We have heard Ld. DR for the Revenue and perused all the relevant materials available on record. We have noted that the ld. CIT(A) has given five notices for hearing but the order of the ld. CIT(A) is silent that whether that notice was served on the assessee or not. We further note that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee stating that there is a mistake in not considering the returned income of Rs. 1,58,790/- by the ITO during the course of assessment and further deduction that the ITO has rightly treated unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. Therefore, we are of the I.T.A No. 196/Rjt/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Pradipsinh Ravubha Parmar vs. ITO 5 view that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee to present his case before the ld. CIT(A). We set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) and remit the matter back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merit after giving due opportunity to the assessee of being heard. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07-08-2024 Sd/- Sd/- (A. L. SAINI) (DINESH MOHAN SINHA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Rajkot True Copy Dated: 07/08/2024 आदेश क त ल प अ े षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. Assessee 2. Revenue 3. Concerned CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, Rajkot 6. Guard file. By order/आदेश से, Assistant Registrar ITAT, Rajkot