Satish Laxman Patil, Dhule V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 2164/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 216424514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 13-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2164/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SATISH LAXMAN PATIL, PLOT NO.54, VRINDAVAN COLONY, DEOPUR, DHULE 424 001. PAN : AGFPP7729L . APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), DHULE. . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : MR. SANTOSH KUMAR DATE OF HEARING : 04-02-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-03-2015 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, NASHIK DATED 07.03.2011 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 28.1 2.2007 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRE D IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED ITO(CIB), NASHIK U/S 144, BY DETERMINING INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,12,500/-. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ITO (CIB), NASHIK DOES NOT HOLD JURIS DICTION OF THE ASSESSEE, AND ASSESSEE IS A REGULAR TAX PAYER AND ALSO FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME, FOR THE CORRESPONDING YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 3. IT WAS NOTICED THAT ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEA RING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEK ING ADJOURNMENT WAS ITA NO.2164/PN/2013 MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL WAS FIXED CONSEQUENT TO THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION MOVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE EARLIER DATE OF HEARING. FOR THE AFORESAID REASONS , HAVING REGARD TO THE RULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE IS BEING DISPOSED-OFF BY EX-PARTE QUA THE APPELLANT-ASSESSEE AND AFTER HEARING THE L D. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON MERITS. 4. IN THIS APPEAL, PRIMARY DISPUTE BETWEEN THE ASSE SSEE AND THE REVENUE ARISES FROM AN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER EX-PARTE U/S 144 OF THE ACT DATED 28.12.2007 WHEREBY THE CASH DE POSITS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUN T WAS CONSIDERED AS AN UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, THEREBY RESULTING IN AN ADD ITION OF RS.10,12,500/-. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THE EFFICACY OF SUCH ADDITION ON ITS MERIT BUT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN D ISMISSED PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND OF NON-APPEARANCE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE APP OINTED DATES OF HEARING. WHILE THE CIT(A) IS COMPETENT TO PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM EX-PARTE , HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, HOWEVER, SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE ACT REQUIRES THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY STATING TH E POINTS FOR DETERMINATION, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR THE DECISI ON. IN OTHER WORDS, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DEALT WITH THE ISSUES RAISED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN HIS APPEAL ON THEIR MERIT AND THE APPEAL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A) MERELY NOTICING THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE WHO SHALL DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL BY STATING THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION BEFORE HIM, THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FO R THE DECISION AS MANDATED BY SUB-SECTION (6) OF SECTION 250 OF THE A CT. ON THIS POINT, WE MAY ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT BEFORE PROCEEDING TO DISPOS E OF THE APPEAL, THE CIT(A) ITA NO.2164/PN/2013 SHALL ALLOW THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD, AND ONLY THEREAFTER PASS AN ORDER AFRESH AS PER LAW. 5. THUS, WITHOUT GOING INTO THE EFFICACY OF THE GRO UNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER T O RESTORE THE APPEAL BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), AS ABOVE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TRE ATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18 TH MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- /- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 18 TH MARCH, 2015. SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK; 4) THE CIT-II, NASHIK; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE