Shri Kiritkumar Himatlal Dholakia, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 252/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6108 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: K C THAKER
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

ITA NO.252/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR AM] ITA NO.252/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 KIRITKUMAR HIMATLAL DHOLAKIA, .... ............................ APPELLANT 801, SUKAN APARTMENT, BODAKDEV ROAD, VASTRAPUR, AHMEDABD 380 015. [PAN : ABIPD 2443 B]. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 14(1), AHMEDABAD. .............RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY K.C. THAKER FOR THE APPELLANT PRASOON KABRA FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 05.12.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 14.02.2018 O R D E R 1. THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, CHALLENGES C ORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 19 TH NOVEMBER 2015, PASSED BY THE LEANED CIT(A), IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT HEREI NAFTER), FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE AS FOLLOW S : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,56,400/- AND OF RS.80,000/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.25,56,400/ - AND OF RS.90,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2 5,56,400/- AND OF RS.80,000/- MAY BE DELETED. 3. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEGUN BY POINTING OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 28 TH MARCH, 2013 WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMIS SIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28 TH MARCH, ITA NO.252/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 3 2013. HE SUBMITS THAT WHEN AGAIN THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE FORWARDED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND A REMAND REPORT WAS CALL ED ON THE SAME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MERELY STATED THAT ALL THE MATERIAL WAS DULY CONSID ERED AT THE TIME OF PASSING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, DID NOT DEAL WITH THE MATTER, ON MERITS, IN THE REMAND REPORT. A COPY OF THESE SUBMISSIONS WAS PLACED BEFORE US AT PAGES 16 TO 54 OF THE PAPER BOOK, AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS ARGUED TO TREAT THE SAME AT LEAST AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A AND DECIDE THE MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF THE SUBMISSIONS SO MADE. LEARNED CIT(A), HOWEVER, HAS DEALT WITH THE MATTER IN A VERY SUPERFICIAL MANNER WITHOUT ADDRESSING HIMSELF TO MERITS OF THE CASE. LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE POSITION, WHICH IS CLEARLY DISCERNIBLE FR OM A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE MATTER SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ADJUDICATION DE NOVO , AFTER GIVING YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING T O THE ASSESSEE AND DULY TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY R ELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW BUT FAIRLY SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION TO THE MATTER BEING REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), IF AT ALL I DEC IDE TO REMIT THE MATTER TO ONE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, AND HAVING P ERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I AGREE WITH THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HA S INDEED DECIDED THE APPEAL IN A RATHER SUPERFICIAL MANNER AS IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE OPERATIONAL PORTION OF THE ORDER AS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 4.8 THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSION OF THE AP PELLANT AS WELL AS THE REMAND REPORT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THE EXPLANATION OF TH E ASSESSEE REGARDING CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS WERE DULY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 28.03.2013 WERE ALSO CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER WHILE FINALISING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DEALT WITH ALL THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FOUND SEV ERAL DISCREPANCIES AND ANOMALIES IN THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NOTHING NEW EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. TH E VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE APPELLAN T IS JUSTIFIED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. THUS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AR E DISMISSED. 5.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.80,000/- BY TREATING CASH DEPOSITS I N HDFC BANK AS UNEXPLAINED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAS CAL LED FOR THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN TH E NATURE AND SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION, THE A O HAS ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.80,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED, 6. IT IS ALSO CLEARLY EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAD NOT DEALT WITH THE SPECIFIC DETAILED SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 28.03.2013 AND THE REMAND REPORT FILED BY HIM ALSO DID ITA NO.252/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 PAGE 3 OF 3 NOT ADEQUATELY DEAL WITH THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE SUBMISSIONS. THE RIGHT COURSE, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, FOR THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS TO DEAL WITH THE MATTER BY WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER, AFTER, IF NECESSARY, GIVING THE ASSESSING OFFICER Y ET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY TO DEAL WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS. 7. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMIT THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH B Y WAY OF A SPEAKING ORDER DEALING WITH CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS, AFTER GIVING YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE PARTIES AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. ORDERED, A CCORDINGLY. 8. AS I HAVE REMITTED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), AS NOTED ABOVE, I SEE NO NEED TO DEAL WITH THE MATTER ON MERITS. THAT ASPEC T OF THE MATTER IS ACADEMIC AS ON NOW. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: AHMEDABAD, THE 14 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. PBN/* COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD