Ramchandra Reddy, Nashik V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 2262/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0513 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: V L JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE . . , BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM . / ITA NOS.2261 TO 2265/PN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1997-98 TO 1999-2000 AND 2001-02 TO 2002-03 SHRI RAMCHANDRA REDDY, FLAT NO.16, GURUKRUPA HEIGHTS, VADJAI MATA NAGAR, MAKHAMALABAD ROAD, PANCHVATI, NASHIK 422003 PAN :ABCPR6636E . / APPELLANT V/S ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.L. JAIN / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE BATCH OF 5 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 24-06-2016 OF THE CI T(A)- 13, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 TO 1999- 2000 & 2001-02 TO 2002-03 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONV ENIENCE ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOS ED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSEE IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THEREFORE, I TAKE UP ITA NO.2261/2016 FO R A.Y.1997-98 AS THE LEAD CASE. / DATE OF HEARING :07.11.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:07.11.2016 2 ITA NOS.2261 TO 2265/PN/2016 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEE WORKING IN INDIAN SECURITY PRESS, NAS HIK AS A LOWER DIVISIONAL CLERK. IN THIS CASE, A RAID HAS BEEN COND UCTED BY THE ACB, JALGAON AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AT 4616, CHINCHBAN, MATE BUILDING, MAKHAMALABAUG NAKA, PANCHVATI, NASHIK 422003 ON 11-02-2003 ON THE GROUND THAT HE IS INVOLVED IN STAMP SCAM UNDER THE BOMBAY STAMP ACT. THE AUTHOR ITY WHO RAIDED THE HOUSE HAD DRAWN A PANCHNAMA ON 11-02-2003 WHEREIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS INDICATING UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND. ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMAT ION DETECTED IN THE COURSE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED ACTION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT ON 19-03-200 4 AFTER GETTING APPROVAL FROM THE HIGHER AUTHORITIES. THE NOTICE W AS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO SUCH NOTICE T HE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 04-10-2004 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.48,570/-. SIMILAR RETURNS WERE FILED FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSM ENT YEARS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER : ASST. YEAR RETURN OF INCOME 1998 - 1999 RS. 80,840/ - 1999 - 2000 RS. 84,27 1/ - 2001 - 2002 RS.69,970/ - 2002 - 2003 RS.35,930/ - 4. SINCE THERE WAS NON-COMPLIANCE FROM THE ASSESSEES S IDE THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 R.W.S. 147 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3,64,070/- FOR THE IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT YEAR BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 R.W.S. 147 FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 3 ITA NOS.2261 TO 2265/PN/2016 ASST. YEAR INCOME ASSESSED 1998 - 1999 RS.5,13,640/ - 1999 - 2000 RS.2,46,746/ - 2001 - 2002 RS.10,34,074/ - 2002 - 2003 RS.75,930/ - 5. THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND FILED VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS. ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE ACCORDING TO THE LD .CIT(A) DID NOT SUBMIT HIS COMMENTS TO SUCH REMAND REPORT TILL D ISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL, THE LD.CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEAL UPHOLDING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THAT PROPER O PPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AND THAT THERE WAS NO VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL J USTICE. 2. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.144 IS BAD IN LAW AND ON FACTS AS THE NOTICES U/S.142(1) WERE RESPONDED TO AND CO MPLIANCES THERETO WERE ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT IGNO RED IN PASSING THE ORDER. 3. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIR MING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,15,500/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U /S.69. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER THE GROUNDS OR ACT TO THE SAME AS BEING NECESSARY. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET FILED A COPY OF THE SUBMISSION DATED 11-05-2016 FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(A) ON 21-06-2016. HE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE SAME WAS FILED BEFORE THE DATE OF ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), HOWEVER HE HAS IGNORED THE SAME AND HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS COMMENTS ON THE REMAND REPORT TILL THE PASSING OF THE ORDER, I.E. ON 24-06-2016. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VERY MUCH FILED 4 ITA NOS.2261 TO 2265/PN/2016 HIS COMMENTS ON THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) BEFORE PASSING OF THE ORDER. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO DEC IDE THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF THE SUBMISSION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON TH E REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HA ND WHILE HEAVILY RELYING ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FAIRLY CON CEDED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS THE ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE P APER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS PASSED AN EXPARTE ORDER U/S.144 R.W.S . 147 FOR THE ABOVE 5 YEARS SINCE THERE WAS NON-COMPLIANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE. I FIND BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE MAD E HIS SUBMISSION FOR ALL THE YEARS BASED ON WHICH THE LD.CIT(A) CA LLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SAID R EMAND REPORT WAS CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS COMMENTS . ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS COMMENTS TO SUCH REMAND REPO RT IN THE OFFICE OF THE CIT(A) ON 21-06-2016, HOWEVER, I FIND THE LD.CI T(A) IN HIS ORDER HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SU BMITTED HIS COMMENTS ON THE REMAND REPORT TILL THE DATE OF THE ORDE R. THIS ACCORDING TO ME IS A FACTUAL ERROR. NOTHING HAS BEEN BRO UGHT BEFORE ME TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE SUBMISSION MADE BY T HE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IS FALSE OR INCORRECT. UNDER TH ESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF 5 ITA NOS.2261 TO 2265/PN/2016 THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE COMMENTS OF TH E ASSESSEE TO THE REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND DECIDE THE APPEAL ACCORDINGLY. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE LD.CIT(A) SHA LL GIVE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEAD TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE APPEALS AS PER FACT AND LAW. I HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AR E ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HE ARING ITSELF, I.E. ON 07-11-2016. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 07 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. '# $# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // $ % / TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // &' % * / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY *, / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) - 13 , PUNE 4. THE PCIT (CENTRAL), PUNE 5. $ %%* , * , SMC BENCH / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH PUNE; 6. 2 / GUARD FILE.