Byrav Gowda , Bangalore V. Income TAx Officer Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

ITA 2610/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5683 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 133(6)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2610 / BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 4 - 15 SHRI BYRAV GOWDA, NO. 3, NARAYANAPPA COMPOUND, NEXT TO N.N. COMPLEX, GEDDALAHALLI, BANGALORE 560 094. PAN: AOCPM 5151N VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6 (3) (2), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : DR. G. MANOJKUMAR, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 1 1 .01.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 .0 1 .201 8 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 7, BANGALORE DATED 01.11.2017 FOR ASSESSME NT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO F AR AS IT IS AGAINST THE APPELLANT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN TH E APPELLANT'S CASE. GROUND 1: THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND COMMISSIONER ( AP PEALS ) HAVE NEITHER APPRECIATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE TR UE SPIRIT NOR EXAMINED THE EXPLANATIONS / STATEMENTS FILED BY THE APPELLANT JUDICIOUSLY, BUT INSTEAD PASSED THE ORDER/(S) IN HA STE WITHOUT GIVING DUE IMPORTANCE TO THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL AND DOCUMENTAR Y EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. GROUND 2: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN RELYING ON CERT AIN DATA OBTAINED FROM THE BANK MANAGER AND MIS-INTERPRETING THE SAME JUST TO MEET THE ENDS OF THE REVENUE, WITHOUT GIVING AN FAIR OPPORTU NITY TO THE APPELLANT TO SHOW CAUSE OR EXPLAIN HIS CONTENTION. THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN DEPRIVED OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ITA NO.2610/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 4 GROUND 3: THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE NOT JUSTIFIED BASED ON TH E FACTS OF THE CASE TO MAKE PRESUMPTION THAT THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT HELD BY T HE APPELLANT WERE IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY RESORTING TO FISHING & ROVING AND READING BETWEEN THE LINES OF THE LETTER RECEIVED FROM THE B ANK MANAGER WHERE NOTHING IS MENTIONED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT IS HELD BY THE APPELLANT IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. GROUND 4: THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS DEPRIVED THE APPELLANT OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE BY AWARDING AN EM PTY OPPORTUNITY OF FILING SUBMISSIONS AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO SHOW CAUSE AND PLACE OUR OBJECTION AND EXPLANATIONS ONLY FOR THE RECORDS . THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER WAY WERE NOT TIME BARRING THAT IT NEEDED SUCH SPEEDY COMPLETION WITHOUT UNDERSTANDING THE HARDSHI PS OF THE AR AND GIVING LEVERAGE FOR THE DEADLINES OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IN LIGHT OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES TO BE FILED PERT AINING TO A.Y. 1999- 2000. IT IS RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED THAT WE MAY BE PERMITT ED TO ADD, DELETE AND / OR PUT FORWARD ANY OTHER GROUNDS AND FACTS OF APPEAL AND OTHER RELATED POINTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. THIS APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 05.12.2 017 AND AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPEAL ITSELF, THE DATE OF HEARING FIXED 11.01. 2018 WAS INTIMATED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT CUM NOTICE. IN SPI TE OF THIS, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING AND THERE IS NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL W AS HEARD EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDE RS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LD. DR OF R EVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. I FIND THAT IN PARA N OS. 2, 3 AND 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO IS DISCUSSING ABOUT CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 1,00,50,300/- IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 10660101 0008372 WITH VIJAYA BANK. THEREAFTER THE AO HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THI S BANK ACCOUNT IS OF THE ASSESSEES HUF AND NOT HIS INDIVIDUAL ACCOUNT. THE REAFTER, THE AO HAS NOTED IN PARA NO. 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT IT WAS I NFORMED BY VIJAYA BANK IN REPLY TO NOTICE U/S. 133(6) OF IT ACT THAT THERE IS ONE MORE BANK ACCOUNT WITH THAT BANK OF THE SAID ASSESSEE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CA PACITY AND THE NUMBER IS 106601011001394 AND THERE IS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 9, 70,370/- IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT DISCLOSING THIS BANK ACCOUNT IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND IN THE BALANCE SHE ET, HE HAS SHOWN CASH ITA NO.2610/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 4 DEPOSIT OF RS. 72,091/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE JANATHA CO-OPERATIVE BANK. THEREAFTER IN PARA NO. 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, T HE AO NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING ON 04.11.2016, THE LD. AR OF ASSE SSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH COPIES OF ITR FILED BY THE HUF FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 AND 2014-15 AND TIME WAS GIVEN TO FURNISH THE SAME ON 10.11.2016. BUT THERE IS NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE. HENCE IT IS SEEN THAT THIS BANK STATEMENT RECEIVED FROM THE BANK IN RESPECT OF ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT WITH VIJ AYA BANK IN WHICH THERE IS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 9,70,370/- WAS NOT CONFRONTED T O THE ASSESSEE AND NO EXPLANATION WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSEE IN THI S REGARD. UNDER THESE FACTS, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION HA S BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM BANK BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SAID INFO RMATION. THIS ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, I FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AN D THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER CONFRONTING THE ASSESSEE WITH THE BANK STATEMENT OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND AFT ER OBTAINING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. ACCORDINGLY I SET ASID E THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FO R FRESH DECISION IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 19 TH JANUARY, 2018. /MS/ ITA NO.2610/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1. APP ELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.