Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3972 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
26-10-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
24-09-2019
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , D B ENCH, CHENNAI , . , & BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2743/CHNY/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) MANGILAL GAUTAMCHAND RAKHECHA (HUF) L.NAHATA & CO., 120, NYNIAPPA NAICKEN STREET, PARK TOWN,CHENNAI-600 003. V S THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON-CORPORATE WARD-9(2) CHENNAI-34. PAN:AAJHM 9144C ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : NONE /RESPONDENT BY : MR. AR V.SREENIVASAN,ADDL.CIT /DATE OF HEARING : 26.10.2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.10.2020 / O R D E R PER G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-10, CHENNAI DATED 05.08.2019 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IS OPPOSED TO THE PRINCIPLES OF EQUITY, NATURAL JUSTIC E AND FAIR PLAY. 2 LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX [APPEALS] OUGH T TO HAVE FIXED AN HEARING DATE, AFTER RECEIVING THE ADJOURNMENT REQUEST ON 31.05.2019, BEFORE PASSING AN ORDER ON 05.08.2019. THUS APPELLANT WAS DENIED NATURAL JUSTI CE. 2 ITA NO.2743/CHMY/2019 3. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] OU GHT TO HAVE GIVEN THE SPEAKING ORDER FOR EACH GROUND RAISED IN THE APPEAL, INSTEAD OF BLANKETLY COVERING ALL THE ISSUES UNDER 'PENNY STOCK' A. ON THE ISSUE OF JURISDICTION, TAKEN IN GROUND NO.2 B. CIT-A HAS TOOK MARGIN MONEY AS ENTIRE INVESTMENT / PURCHASE PRICE, TAKEN IN GROUND NO. 3 C. ON THE ISSUE THAT THIS IS NOT A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND ONLY TRADING PROFIT, TAKEN IN G ROUND NO. 3 &4 4. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX [APPEALS] OUGHT TO HAVE NOTICED THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FORMED AN OPINION INDEPENDENTLY. THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE AND OPINION FORMED BY PREVIOUS INCOME TAX OFFICER AT MA LEGAON CANNOT GIVE JURISDICTION TO CURRENT ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX [APPEALS] OUGHT TO HAVE NOTICED THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MIS TAKEN A TRANSACTION WHICH WAS PART OF THE BUSINESS OF APPEL LANT TO BE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 6. LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX [APPEALS] OUGHT TO HAVE NOTICED THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE GIVEN PRECISE REASON FOR ADDITION INSTEAD OF PRINTI NG SOME IRRELEVANT INFORMATION SUCH AS I) SHARE PRICES FROM JAN 10 TO OCT 12, II) BALANCE SHEET DATA FOR FIRST 5 YEARS AND PROFIT AND LOSS DATA FOR NEXT 5 YEARS. 7. INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B, 234C IS ALSO DISPUTED IN T HIS APPEAL. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE (HUF) FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 -11 ON 29.07.2011 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 4,53,350/- AND THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO THE ACT). THE CASE WAS REOPENED U/S.147 OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION REC EIVED FROM DDIT(INV) UNIT-IV)1), THANE, THAT ASSESSEE HAS TRA DED IN THE 3 ITA NO.2743/CHMY/2019 SHARES OF M/S. KCL INFRA PROJECTS LTD., A PENNY S TOCK COMPANY AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 28. 03.2018 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.04.2018 ADMIT TING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 4,53,950/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143( 3) READ WITH 147 OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT ` 14,88,210/- BY MAKING ADDITION OF ` 10,34,860/- TOWARDS THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. KCL INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S MANIPULATED SALE OF SHARES WITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME IN COLLUSION WITH THE BROKERS TO BRING THE BOOK EXEM PT PROFIT ON SALE OF SHARES. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A SSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE NEITHER APPEARED NOR FILED ANY DETAILS , WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT THE CIT(A) DISPOSED O F THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE ON THE GROUND THA T DESPITE VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING FIXED FOR DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL, BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED AND FILED ANY DETAI LS. 4 ITA NO.2743/CHMY/2019 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. NONE APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE HEARD TH E LEARNED D.R., PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON REC ORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FI ND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE EX-PARTE FOR NON-PROSECUTION ON THE GROU ND THAT DESPITE VARIOUS DATES OF HEARING WERE FIXED ON 29.01.2019, 20.05.2019 AND 31.05.2019, BUT THE ASSESSEE NEITH ER APPEARED NOR FILED ANY DETAILS TO JUSTIFY ITS CA SE. NO DOUBT, IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF THE PERSON WHO FILES APPEAL , GO BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES, WHEN THE APPEAL IS CALLED FOR HEAR ING TO JUSTIFY ITS CASE. IN CASE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHOOSE TO APPE AR BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES, THEN THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY I S LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL ON THE BASI S OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, BUT THE SAID APPEAL NEEDS TO BE DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILAB LE ON RECORD. IN THIS CASE, ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL FOR NON-APPEARANCE WITHOUT DISCUSSING THE ISSUES INVO LVED IN THE APPEAL ON MERITS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION 5 ITA NO.2743/CHMY/2019 THAT THE ISSUE NEEDS TO GO BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO FIL E NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CASE. HENCE, WE SET ASI DE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BAC K TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND DIRECT HIM TO RECONSIDER T HE ISSUES AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE SHALL GO B EFORE THE CIT(A) WITHOUT SEEKING ANY ADJOURNMENT UNLESS OR O THERWISE WARRANTS UNDER EXTREME CIRCUMSTANCES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH OCTOBER, 2020 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( . ) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (G. MANJUNATHA ) / VICE-PRESIDENT $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & /CHENNAI, ' /DATED 26 TH OCTOBER, 2020 DS )* +* /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. , () /CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. * 1 /DR 6. /GF .
