Shri Kantibhai Rayaji Ode, Ahmedabad V. The ITO, Ward-2(2)(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 234/AHD/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8478 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD C BENCH BEFORE: SHR I S. S. GODARA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI KANTIBHAI RAYAJI ODE, 29, SHYAMPUJA DUPLEX - 1, MOTERA GANDHINAGAR ROAD, SABARMATI, AHMEDABAD PAN: AAGPO 0002L (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, WARD - 2(2)(2), PRATYAKSH KAR BHAVAN, AMBAWADI, AHMEDABAD (RESPON DENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI PRASOON KABRA , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI S.N. DIVETIA , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 15 - 03 - 2 018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 - 04 - 2 01 8 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THIS ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13 , ARIS ES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - 10 , AHM EDABAD DATED 16 - 11 - 2016 , IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE AS SESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1.1 THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 27.7.2011 FOR A.Y.2008 - 09 BY CIT(A) - XVI, ABAD UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.9 LAKH AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69 MADE BY AO IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE P RINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. I T A NO . 2 34 / A HD/20 17 A SSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13 I.T.A NO. 234 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI KANTIBHAI RAYAJI ODE VS. ITO 2 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE SUBMISSIONS MADE AND EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT WITH REGARD TO THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THAT THE INVESTMENT OF RS.9 LAKH IN LAND WAS UNEXPLAINED. 2.2 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE INVESTMENT OF RS.9 LAK H IN LAND AS UNEXPLAINED. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THAT THE INVESTMENT IN LAND WAS BOGUS IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE SUCH AS DOCUMENTS, NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE VENDOR ETC. 3. IN THIS CASE, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED EX - PARTE U/S. 144 OF THE ACT ON 26 TH FEB, 2015. THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 52 , 79 , 214/ - U/S. 144 OF T HE ACT AGAINST THE NIL INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE AS NOBODY HAS MADE COMPLIANCE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE LD. CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, SHRI S.N. DIVETIA LD. COUNSEL HAS PRODUCED MEDICAL CERTIFICATE DATED 19 TH NOV , 2016 INDIC ATING THAT DUE TO ILL WEALTH , THE ASSE SEE HAS NOT MADE COMPLIANCE TO T H E APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS HANDED OVER ALL THE NOTICES OF HEARING RECEIVED BY HIM TO TAX CONSULTANT , HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT A PPEAR ON 10 TH NOV, 2016. HE HAS REQUESTED TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR DECIDING THIS CASE ON MERIT. ON THE OTHER HAND , LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS INDICATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DURING T HE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAKE COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICES BECAUSE OF ILL HEALTH AND NOTICE FOR HEARING FIXED ON 10 TH NOV, 2016 WAS HANDED OVER TO THE TAX CONSULTANT WHO HAS NOT ATTENDED BECAUSE OF UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES. WE HAVE NOTICED THAT LD.CIT(A) HAS ISSUED A NOTICE DATED 09.03.2016 AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED FOR TWO TIMES I.T.A NO. 234 /AHD/20 17 A.Y. 2012 - 13 PAGE NO SHRI KANTIBHAI RAYAJI ODE VS. ITO 3 ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER FINAL NOTICE DATED 20/10/2010 WAS ISSUED AND THE TAX CONSULTANT HAD NOT ATTENDED ON THE FIXED DATE OF HEARING AS STATED ABOVE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IT APPEARS TO BE BONA FIDE REASON FOR NONCOMPLIANCE , THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE RESTORE THIS CASE TO THE F ILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING AFRESH ON MERIT AFTER AFFORDING THREE OPPORTUNITIES OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE F AILING WHICH OUR INSTANT ORDER WOULD BE DEEMED TO HAVE BEEN VACATED. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OURT ON 1 2 - 04 - 201 8 SD/ - SD/ - ( S.S. GODARA ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 12 /04 /2018 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,