Amratbhai D. Rayka, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Navsari

ITA 27/SRT/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4557 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-01-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANUPMA SINGLA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAGNESH JAGASHETH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 27/SRT/2018 (AY 2013-14) (H EARING IN VIRTUAL COURT) AMRATBHAI D. RAYKA, AT. NADOD BRAHMIN STREET, JALALPORE, NAVSARI - 396436 PAN : AJVPR 9089 G VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, NAVSARI. APPLICANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY SHRI PRAGNESH JAGASHETH CA REVENUE BY MS. ANUPMA SINGLA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 18.05.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 18.05.2021 ORDER UNDER SECTION 254(1) OF INCOME TAX ACT PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), VALSAD, DATED 22.11.2017, FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2013-14. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.26,12,077/- ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION OF TRADING INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE (50% OF RS.52,24,154/-) AND RESTRICTING AGRICULTURE INCOME AT RS.10,42,207/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.59,60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNTS TREATED AS ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITED. 3. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED AS LEARNED MEMBERS OF THE TRIBUNAL MAY DEEM IT PROPER. 4. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ANY GROUND(S) EITHER BEFORE OR IN THE COURSE OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 27/SRT/2018 AMRATBHAI D. RAYKA (AY 2013-14) 2 2. ON HEARING, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE LD.CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-COMPLIANCE. THE LD.CIT(A) ADJUDICATED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERIT. THE AR SUBMITS THAT THE DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED BY LD.CIT(A) VIDE NOTICE DATED 11.04.2017, 28.04.2017, 09.05.2017 AND 22.08.2017. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ALL NOTICES AND ATTENDED TO PROCEEDING. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT FOR VALID REASON. THE LD.CIT(A) THOUGH GRANTED ADJOURNMENT, BUT DATE OF HEARING WAS NOT FIXED AND PASSED THE ORDER EX- PARTE IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FOR NON-COMPLIANCE. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT HE MAY BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA) AND APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERIT. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.SENIOR DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (SR.DR) FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY, THOUGH ASSESSEE HAS APPEARED THROUGH REPRESENTATIVE NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. ON CONFRONTING THE FACT THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THE LD.SR.DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMIT THAT APPEAL MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERIT WITH THE DIRECTION TO ASSESSEE TO NOT TO MAKE FURTHER DEFAULT IN APPEARANCE AND TO PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE TO THE LD.CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF BEFORE US. WE HAVE SEEN THAT AR OF THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT NOTICE FOR VARIOUS DATES WERE RECEIVED AND THEY APPEARED AS AND WHEN NOTICE OF HEARING WAS RECEIVED, HOWEVER, THEY SOUGHT ITA NO. 27/SRT/2018 AMRATBHAI D. RAYKA (AY 2013-14) 3 ADJOURNMENT FOR BONAFIDE REASONS. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE DATE OF HEARING WAS FIXED WITH THE CONVENIENCE OF ASSESSEE, BUT NO ONE TURNED UP FOR THE HEARING NOR FILED ANY WRITTEN SUBMISSION. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT RECORDED THE DATE OF HEARING ON SUCH NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE OR FOR THAT DATE IN SPECIFIC NOTICE WAS SERVED FOR COMMUNICATING SUCH DATE. WE HAVE FURTHER NOTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED THE ORDER AS PER THE MANDATE OF SECTION 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT MANDATES THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL IS REQUIRED TO PASS ORDER ON POINTS OF DETERMINATION (GROUNDS OF APPEALS), DECISION THEREIN ON AND REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION. 5. CONSIDERING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED, THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AS AND WHEN THE DATE OF HEARING AND TO PROVIDE ALL NECESSARY EVIDENCE AND INFORMATION WITHOUT ANY FURTHER DELAY AND NOT TO SEEK THE ADJOURNMENT WITHOUT ANY VALID REASONS. THE LD.CIT(A) IS ALSO DIRECTED TO DISPOSE THE APPEAL AS EARLY AS POSSIBLE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER ANNOUNCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL ON 18 TH MAY 2021 IN THE VIRTUAL COURT HEARING. SD/- SD/- (DR ARJUN LAL SAINI) (PAWAN SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER SURAT, DATED: 18/05/2021 / SGR COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE ITA NO. 27/SRT/2018 AMRATBHAI D. RAYKA (AY 2013-14) 4 TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, SURAT TRUE COPY/