Smt. Durgaben Manishbhai Lodariya, Morbi V. The ITO Ward-1,Morbi, Morbi

ITA 207/RJT/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3376 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-03-2024
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH KUMAR PANDEY
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 68; 142(1); 143(1); 143(2)

Judgement Text

ITA No.207/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT (Conducted through E-Court at Ahmedabad) BEFORE Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.207/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Smt. Durgaben Manishbhai Lodariya, Shitranagar Society Near PG Clock, Sanala Road, Morbi – 363 641. [PAN – AKXPL 2059 B] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1, Morbi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Chetan Agarwal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR D a t e o f H e a ri n g 12.03.2024 D a t e o f P ro n o u n c e m e n t 15.03.2024 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and as well as on facts in dismissing/disposing off the appeal ex-parte on basis of Latin Dictum “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT” 2. That the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and as well as on facts for confirming addition of Rs.6,70,000/- under Section 68 r.w.s. 115BBE of the IT Act 1961 3. Under the circumstances it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be set aside and the additions upheld by him as above may kindly be deleted.” ITA No.207/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 2 3. The assessee is an individual having income from profit & gains from business and profession and income from other sources. The assessee filed return of income on 11.01.2017 showing total income of Rs.2,75,540/-. The return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The case was selected for limited scrutiny for the reason that large investment in property as compared to total income and to examine whether investment and income relating to properties are duly disclosed. Accordingly, notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 20.09.2017 and duly served upon the assessee. Further, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act was issued on 14.09.2018. in response to the notices, the assessee filed her submissions on various dates along with copy of income tax return, agreement deed for purchase of immovable property, details of persons from whom unsecured loans was accepted i.e. copy of income tax returns, bank statements, books of accounts etc. The Assessing Officer observed that during the year the assessee purchased commercial property for Rs.1,55,95,100/-. The assessee was 1/3 rd owner of the said property and accordingly her share in property was Rs.55,09,326/-. The assessee accepted unsecured loan of Rs.48,50,000/- from ten persons. After taking into account the assessee’s submissions and details, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6,70,000/- under Section 68 read with Section 115BBE of the Act as unsecured loan. 4. Being aggrieved by the Assessment Order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) has not adjudicated the issues contested in the appeal before him on merit and simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The Ld. AR submitted that the matter may be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues. 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the Assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has given notices of hearing but whether that was properly served upon the assessee or not has not been mentioned in the order of the CIT(A). Besides this, the CIT(A) has dismissed the ITA No.207/RJT/2023 Assessment Year: 2016-17 3 appeal of the assessee only on the ground of non-appearance and not commented on merit of the case. Hence, it is appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication of the issues contested by the assessee before the CIT(A) as per law and decide the issues. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following the principles of natural justice. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 15 th March, 2024 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Accountant Member Judicial Member Ahmedabad, the 15 th day of March, 2024 PBN/* Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rajkot Bench, Rajkot