Shri Karnik J.Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-7(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 2707/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 270720514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Assessee Lawyers: ANKIT TULSANIA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., BEFORE SHRI B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !./ I.T.A.NO.2707/AHD/2010 ( # $%# # $%# # $%# # $%# / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) SHRI KARNIK J.SHAH 91, VISHWAKETU TOWER-II OPP.IOC PETROL PUMP, BODAKDEV, AHMEADBAD / VS. THE ITO WARD-7(1) AHMEDABAD & !./' !./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACIPS 7518 K ( &( / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*&( / RESPONDENT ) &( + / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ANKIT TULSANIA, AR )*&( , + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.L. YADAV, SR.D.R. -$. , /0 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 19/09/2013 12% , /0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19/09/2013 3 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 18/06/2010 FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF LD.AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3.34,686/- U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONF IRMING THE ACTION OF LD.AO IN DISALLOWING EXPENSES OF RS.10,27 7/- BEING 1/20 TH OF RS.2,05,551/- TOWARDS CONVEYANCE, PETROL, TRAVE LING, OFFICE, MISCELLANEOUS, MOBILE PHONE AND TELEPHONE C HARGES. 3. BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE PASSED THE ORDERS W ITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT AND THAT THEY FURTHE R ERRED IN GROSSLY IGNORING VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS, EXPLANATIONS AND ITA NO.2707/AHD /2010 SHRI KARNIK J.SHAH VS. THE ITO ASST.YEAR - 2005-06 - 2 - INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BEFORE PASSING THE IM PUGNED ORDER. THIS ACTION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IS IN CLEAR BREACH OF LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE DESERVES TO BE QUASHED. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE LD.AO IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S.234B/C OF THE ACT. 5. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING ACTION OF THE LD.AO IN INITIATING PENALT Y U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER, ED IT, DELETE, MODIFY OR CHANGE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEA L AT THE TIME OF OR BEFORE THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,34,686/- ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS CAS H CREDITS WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF CE RTAIN DETAILS WERE NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO OR THE DETAILS WERE NOT FOU ND SATISFACTORY. THE AO HAS ALSO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.10,227/- OUT OF EXPENSES ON ESTIMATION BASIS. 3. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS BUT THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE SAID EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE AND, ACCORDINGLY, CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE AO. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE P ARTIES AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ALL THE DETAILS ASKED FOR. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY ITA NO.2707/AHD /2010 SHRI KARNIK J.SHAH VS. THE ITO ASST.YEAR - 2005-06 - 3 - OF BEING HEARD AND, THEREFORE, THE DETAILS COULD NO T BE FILED BEFORE THE AO, WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) ARE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCES WHICH, IN FACT, SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE AO ALSO AND THE LD .CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE FORWARDED THE FRESH EVIDENCES TO THE AO FOR HI S REPORT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. EXAMINING ALL THE DETAILS BY THE LD .CIT(A) WILL NOT SUFFICE WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IF THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF AO WHO WILL EXAMINE ALL THE DETAILS/EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) OR ANY OTHER DETAILS IF SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE DE NOVO BY AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. THUS, ALL TH E GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPO SES. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE SD/- ( .. ) ( B.P. JAIN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 19/ 09 /2013 60.., $.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ITA NO.2707/AHD /2010 SHRI KARNIK J.SHAH VS. THE ITO ASST.YEAR - 2005-06 - 4 - 3 , )/7 87%/ 3 , )/7 87%/ 3 , )/7 87%/ 3 , )/7 87%// COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*&( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! / -9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. -9() / THE CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 5. 7$:; )/ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<# =. / GUARD FILE. 3- 3- 3- 3- / BY ORDER, *7/ )/ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / ! ! ! ! ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 19.9.13 (DICTATION-PAD 4 PAGES ATTACHED WITH THE FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 19.9.13 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 5. DATE ON WHICH FAIR ORDER PLACED BEFORE OTHER MEMBER 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S. 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER