Shri Jatin Rameshchandra Naik, Navsari V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-2, Navsari

ITA 2321/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85784 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 12-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MK SINGH
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER SHRI JATIN RAMESHCHANDRA NAIK PROPRIETOR OF PALASH PETROLEUM, 1297-1, COSTAL HIGHWAY, SARIBUJRANG, AMALSAD, TAL GANDEVI, DIST. NAVSARI-396310 PAN:AALPN 9034 A (APPELLANT) VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, NAVSARI (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI TUSHAR HEMANI, A.R . REVENUE BY: SHRI M.K. SINGH, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 12-03-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-03- 2015 / ORDER PER : ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), VALSAD DATED 18-11-2009 FOR A.Y. 2006-07. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI AL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. ITA NO. 2321/AHD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 I.T.A NO. 2321/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO SHRI JATIN RAMESHCHANDRA NAIK PROPRIETOR OF PALASH PETROLEUM VS. ITO 2 3. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE ENGAGED I N RE-SALE OF PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF I NCOME FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON 26-12-2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 85,767/ - AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,78,700/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S. 143(3) VI DE ORDER DATED 26-12- 2008 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 63, 35,460/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEF ORE CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 18/11/2009 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO TH E ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSSESEE IS NOW I N APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL US LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLD ING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS B Y INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SEC.L45(3) OF THE ACT. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLD ING THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD INFLAT ED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ESTIMATING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 1,00,000/- AS AGA INST THE RETURNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.1,78,700/-. 3) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLD ING THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8,90,000/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AT RS 11,90,000/-BY INVOKING PROVISION OF SEC.68. 4) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLD ING THE PARTIAL ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DIFF ERENCE IN CLOSING BALANCE OF SUNDRY CREDITORS. 5) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON PRESUMPTION OF RS.48,27,625/- AS UNACC OUNTED INVESTMENTS. 6) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS WITHOUT GIVING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE HIM. I.T.A NO. 2321/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO SHRI JATIN RAMESHCHANDRA NAIK PROPRIETOR OF PALASH PETROLEUM VS. ITO 3 7) THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE WRITTE N SUBMISSION AS WELL AS PAPER BOOK FILED BEFORE HIM WITH EVIDENC ES AND PROOFS TO SUPPORT THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS RAISED IN APPEAL. 8) FOR VARIOUS REASON AND ON DIFFERENT GROUNDS, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEAL S), VALSAD, DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 4. REGISTRY HAS INFORMED THAT THERE HAS BEEN DELAY OF 517 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. ASSESSEE HAS FILED A CONDONATION APPLI CATION AND ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WHEREIN THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING T HE APPEAL HAVE BEEN STATED. THE REASON INTER ALIA STATES THAT THE DELA Y WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ILL HEALTH OF THE PARENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND OF THE AS SESSEE HIMSELF. CONSIDERING THE AVERMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE AFFIDAVIT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE HAS BEEN REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, WE THEREFO RE CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL. 5. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE CIT(A), ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEAR AND THEREFORE AN EX-PARTE ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED BY CIT(A). HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ASSE SSEE BE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT THE CASE BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND FURTHER GAVE AN UNDERTAKING TO APPEAR SUO MOTO BEFORE LD. CIT(A) . LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES G RANTED TO ASSESSEE NONE HAD APPEARED BEFORE CIT(A) AND FURTHER CIT(A) HAD DECIDED THE APPEAL ON MERITS AND HAS ALSO GRANTED RELIEF ON SOM E OF THE ISSUES. HE THEREFORE OBJECTED TO THE SECOND INNINGS SOUGHT BY LD. AR. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME O F RS. 85,767/- FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO HAS DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME AT RS. 63,35,460/-. FURTHER CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS PARENTS WERE NOT I.T.A NO. 2321/AHD/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO SHRI JATIN RAMESHCHANDRA NAIK PROPRIETOR OF PALASH PETROLEUM VS. ITO 4 KEEPING GOOD HEALTH AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT TH E ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) IS EX-PARTE ORDER AND FURTHER TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THE UNDERTAKING GIVEN BY LD. AR TO COOPERATE AND APPEAR BEFORE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH ON MERITS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND T HEREAFTER DECIDE THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR SUO MOTO BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WITHIN 30 DAYS FROM THE PASS ING OF THE ORDER AND SEEK THE DATE OF HEARING FROM LD. CIT(A). SINCE THE MATTER HAS BEEN REMITTED BACK TO CIT(A), WE HAVE NOT DECIDED THE OT HER GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE ON MERITS. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. THUS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 20/03/2015 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,