Smt. Sonalben N. Shah, Baroda V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1),., Baroda

ITA 2150/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8739 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2150/AHD/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SMT. SONALBEN N. SHAH, B-33, TIRTH TENAMENTS, WAGHODIA DABHOI RING ROAD, WADHODIA, BARODA-390018 PAN : AVSPS 8561 K VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (1), BARODA / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : URVASHI SODHAN, AR REVENUE BY : MUDIT NAGPAL, SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 03/08/2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04/08/2017 / O R D E R PER RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-V, BARODA DATED 24.03.2014 PASSED FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN SEVEN GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IN HER FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, SHE HAS PLEADED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITION AL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, 1962. SHE ALSO CONTE NDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVIDED DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CI T(A) DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AT THE VERY OUTSET , CONTENDED THAT THOUGH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SC RUTINY ASSESSMENT AND FIRST NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ON ITA NO. 2150/AHD/2014 SMT. SONALBEN N. SHAH VS. ITO FOR AY: 2007-08 2 21.07.2008, BUT THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS REMAINED DORMANT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STARTED SERIOUS INVES TIGATION IN THE MONTH OF SEPTEMBER 2009. HE ISSUED THE LAST SHOW-CAUSE NOTI CE ON 30.11.2009 DIRECTING THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS WITHIN 3 DAYS AND ULTIMATELY PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 09.12.2009. 4. DISSATISFIED BY THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) AND POINTED OUT ABOVE LAPSES. SHE PRAYED FOR PERMISSION TO AD DUCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS REJECT ED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON THE GRO UND THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ON THE OTHE R HAND, CONTENDED THAT PERUSAL OF PAGE NO.3 OF THE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER WOULD INDICATE THAT HE HAS REPRODUCED A REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DATED 05.08.2011. IN THIS REPORT, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS MADE REFERENCE OF SIX NOTICES; MEANING THEREBY OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE AND SHE FAILED TO AVAIL THEM. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) HAS RI GHTLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AN D GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD WOULD IN DICATE THAT THE FIRST NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON 21.07.2008. IT WAS ISSUED UNDER SECT ION 143(2) OF THE ACT, MEANING THEREBY AN OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASS ESSEE TO SUBMIT THE MATERIAL, IF ANY, IN SUPPORT OF HER RETURN. IT APP EARS THAT THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REMAINED DORMANT UPTO 01.06. 2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER ISSUED TWO QUESTIONNAIRES. THE T IME GAP APPEARING IN THESE NOTICES WOULD INDICATE THAT SERIOUS INVESTIGA TION PROCEEDINGS WERE STARTED IN THE MONTH OF NOVEMBER 2009 AND ASSESSMEN T ORDER WAS PASSED ON 09.12.2009. THERE MIGHT BE SOME NEGLIGENCE ON O NE OR TWO OCCASIONS AT ITA NO. 2150/AHD/2014 SMT. SONALBEN N. SHAH VS. ITO FOR AY: 2007-08 3 THE END OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT BY AND LARGE, IT IS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD NOT COMMENCED THE PROCEEDINGS IN TIME STRETCHING TH E ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO THE FAG END AND THEREAFTER STARTED P UTTING PRESSURE UPON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DETAILS WITHIN ONE OR TWO DA YS. THE NUMBER OF NOTICES WOULD NOT DEMONSTRATE PROVIDING EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE; RATHER THE TIME SPENT BETWEEN THOSE NOTICES AND HOW PROCEEDINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED WOULD DEMONSTRATE THE OPPORTUNI TIES GIVEN OR NOT. CONSIDERING THE PUNISHMENT IN THE SHAPE OF TAX LIAB ILITY AND CONTRIBUTING NEGLIGENCE AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PUNISHMENT IS DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WITHOUT GOI NG INTO ANY OF THE ISSUES ON MERIT, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE BOTH THE ORDERS AND RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES AGITATED BEFORE US IN THE GROUNDS OF APP EAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 4 TH AUGUST, 2017 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 04/08/2017 BIJU T., SR.PS ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! # / CONCERNED CIT 4. # ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. & ! , ! , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ', / ITAT, AHMEDABAD