Niyant Y.Trivedi, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-11(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 2406/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 240620514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DK MISHR A
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT TALWANIA
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , SMC, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, SMC BENCH . .. . . .. . , ! ! ! ! BEFORE SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT ITA NO.2406/AHD/2011 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2008-2009] NIYANT Y. TRIVEDI 1, RANGVIHAR SOCIETY OPP: SHANKAR ASHRAM NR. NID CIRCLE, RAJNAGAR, PALDI. PAN : ACNPT 0585 G /VS. ITO, WARD-11(2) AHMEDABAD. ( (( (#$ #$ #$ #$ / APPELLANT) ( (( (%&#$ %&#$ %&#$ %&#$ / RESPONDENT) '() * + !/ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANKIT TALWANIA -. * + !/ REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K. MISHRA, SR.DR ./ * )01/ DATE OF HEARING : 12 TH DECEMBER, 2013 234 * )01/ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10-01-2014 !5 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-2009 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMED ABAD DATED 22.7.2011. 2. THERE IS A DELAY OF ONE DAY IN FILING THE PRESEN T APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONDONATION APPLI CATION BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL EXPLAINING THE CIRCUMSTANCES FOR THE DELAY . I HAVE HEARD PARTIES ITA NO.2406/AHD/2011 ON THE ISSUE OF DELAY IN FLING THE APPEAL BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THA T THERE IS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR THE DELAY OF ONE DAY IN FILING THE PRESEN T APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL IS CONDONED. 3. THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ADD ITION OF RS.1,79,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CAPITA L INTRODUCED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ASKED THE APPELLANT TO EX PLAIN THE SOURCE OF CAPITAL INTRODUCED FOR RS.1,79,000/-. IN CONNECTION TO THAT ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT DEBITED IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR APPLICATION IN INITIAL PUBLIC OFFER OF RELIANCE POWER LIMITED OF RS.1,93,500.00 AND SAME IS TAKEN BACK IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT AFTER ALLOTMENT OF SHARES OF RS.14,500.00. SAME IS STATED AT APPELLATE STAGE AND ASSESSMENT STAGE. ALSO, SAME IS EXPLAINED WHILE LEDGER VERIFICATION DONE BY ASSESSING OFFICER . THAT IS THE SIMPLE ACCOUNTING TRANSACTION AND ROUTED THROUGH CA PITAL ACCOUNT AS WELL AS SIMPLE BANK TRANSACTION IS NOT UNDERSTAN DABLE TO THE LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER. SAME IS TO BE DELETED F ROM ADDITION MADE BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ADD ITION OF RS.30,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NOT FURNISHING REASO NS OF TALL IN G.P. SAME IS REDUCED BY APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,000.00 AS PARTIAL RELIEF. THE LEARNED CIT APP EAL ALSO DISCUSSED IN HIS ORDER THAT 'HOWEVER, THE BASIS OF G.P. ADDITION WAS NOT DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REA SON OF ADDITION OF RS.30,000/- WERE NOWHERE GIVEN.' SAME SHOULD BE DELETED AS THERE WAS NO REASON FOR ADDITION WITH ASSESSING OFF ICER . 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS DEBITED IN CAPITAL AC COUNT FOR APPLICATION IN INITIAL PUBLIC OFFER OF RELIANCE POWER LTD. AMOU NTING TO ` 1,93,500/- AND THE SAME WAS TAKEN BACK IN CAPITAL ACCOUNT AFTE R ALLOTMENT OF SHARES OF ` 14,500/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT FACTS WERE NOT CORRECT LY APPRECIATED OR EVALUATED BY THE AO. THE LEARNED DR HAS OPPOSED TH E SUBMISSIONS OF ITA NO.2406/AHD/2011 THE LEARNED AR. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO AND THE C IT(A) HAVE GIVEN AMBLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE ITS CASE , BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SAME TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE REV ENUE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE SHOULD NOT BE RESTORED TO THE FILE O F THE AO AND FRESH CHANCE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE. HE RELIED O N THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). 5. I HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRI ED TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRY IN QUESTION. THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS FRAME D UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED OTHER DETAIL S ALSO. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IT SHALL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE ONE MORE CHANCE TO EXPLAIN ITS CASE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND TO SATISFY THEM REGARDI NG ENTRY PASSED BY IT IN ITS ACCOUNT BOOKS , AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ISSUES IN BOTH THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH DIRECTION TO PASS DE NOVO ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, AFTER ALL OWING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD