Shri Manoj Kumar Singhal, Dhanbad V. ITO WD-2(4), Dhanbad

ITA 25/RAN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9654 (ITAT-RANCHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 08-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P K MONDAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S K PODDARDEVESH PODDAR
• Keywords: Gift; Set aside
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.25 /RAN/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005 - 2006 SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SINGHAL, PROP. M/S. RAMDHARI RAMNATH, KALPANA KUTI, J.C. MALLICK ROAD, HIRAPUR, DHANBAD VS. ITO, WARD II(4 ), DHANBAD PAN/GIR NO. AIEPS 0144 D (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY: SHRI S.K.PODDAR/DEVESH PODDAR, ADV REVENUE BY : SHRI P.K.MONDAL, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 28 /05 / 201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 /05/ 2018 O R D E R PER N.S.SAINI, AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DHANBAD DATED 6.12 .2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 005 - 2006. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASSING ORDER EX - PARTY SINCE THE AR ENGAGED DID NOT APPEAR. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 05/12/2016 AFTER 4 YEARS. THE LD. AR ENGAGED TO ARGUE AND MAKE SUBMISSIONS DID NOT REPRESENT THE APPEAL BE FORE LD. CIT(A) FOR WHICH APPELLANT HAD NO KNOWLEDGE, AS SUCH, LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED ATLEAST ONE OPPORTUNITY FOR HEARING. 2. FOR THAT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT CONSIDER ON MERIT ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/ - MADE FOR GIFT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FOR WHIC H SUFFICIENT 2 ITA NO.25/RAN/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 2006 EVIDENCE WAS FILED. THE DONORS APPEARED BEFORE LD. A.O. AND GAVE STATEMENT, FACT OF GIFT WAS REFLECTED IN THEIR IT PROCEEDINGS. BOTH THE DONORS WERE ASSESSED TO TAX, AS SUCH, LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00, 000/ - ON THE GROUND THAT GENIUSES OF THE GIFT CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONORS WAS NOT PROVED. CT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE SINCE FACT OF GIFT STANDS PROVED BY PERSONAL APPEARANCE AND DOCUMENTS FILED. 3. FOR THAT LD. A.O. WAS NOT JU STIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 20,968/ - BY DISALLOWANCE OUT OF CARRIAGE OUTWARDS AND RS. 2,242/ - OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES. THIS ISSUE WAS NOT MENTIONED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) BY MISTAKE AND OVER SIGHT OF OUR AR WHO EXPIRED. WE PRAY THAT THE ADDITIONS MAD E BY LD. A.O. MAY KINDLY BE CONSIDERED ON MERIT SINCE ADDITION WAS MADE IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER WITHOUT ANY DEFECT IN MAINTENANCE OF ACCOUNTS. 4. FOR THAT FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JHARKHAND HIGH COURT INTEREST IF ANY U/S 234B SHALL BE CHARGED ON T HE RETURNED INCOME AND NOT ON ASSESSED INCOME. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) HAS PASSED EX - PARTE ORDER AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON ASSESSEES BEHALF ON VARIOUS DATE S FIXED FOR HEARING AND PRAYED THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY BE ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DR SUBMITTED THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR DESPITE ALLOWING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES AND, THEREFORE, LEARNED CIT (A) WAS RIGHT IN PASSING THE EX PARTE ORDER CONSIDERING THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. AFTER CONSID ERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EXAPARTE AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM BEFORE US, LD 3 ITA NO.25/RAN/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 2006 A.R. HAS REQUESTED TO ALLOW ONE MORE OPPORTUN ITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN VIEW OF ABOVE AND IN ORDER TO RENDER SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE TO THE ASSESSES, ALL MATERIALS FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. FOR DOING SO, AN OPPORTUNITY HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO TH E ASSESSEES. WE , THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) TO RE - ADJUDICATE THE APPEAL S AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 6 . IN THE RESULT, TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 3 0 /05 /201 8 S D / - S D / - (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) (N.S SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER RANCHI; DATED 3 0 /05 /201 8 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, SR.PS, ITAT, CAMP AT RANCHI 1. THE APPELLANT SHRI MANOJ KUMAR SINGHAL, PROP. M/S. RAMDHARI RAMNATH, KALPANA KUTI, J.C. MALLICK ROAD, HIRAPUR, DHANBAD 2. THE RESPONDENT: ITO, WARD II(4), DHANBAD 3. THE CIT(A), DHANBAD 4. PR. CIT , DHANBAD 5. DR, ITAT, RANCHI 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//