Shri Navnitlal Kalidas Gandhi (HUF), Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Surat

ITA 2811/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 94558 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 14-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRADIPKUMAR MAJUMDAR
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD SMC BENC H (BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO: 2811/AHD/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) NAVNITLAL KALIDAS GANDHI (HUF), PROP. OF AMBIKA TEXTILES, 16, BHAGYANIDHI ROW HOUSE, NR. GANGESHWAR MAHADEV, NEW ADAJAN ROAD, SURAT V/S I.T.O., WARD-3 (1), SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN: AAEHG4008E APPELLANT BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS) RESPONDENT BY: SHRI PRADIPKUMAR MAJUMDAR, SR. D.R . ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 14-10-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21-10-2015 PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A)-IV, SURAT DATED 1.08.2013 FOR A.Y. 2008-09. ITA NO 2811/ AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-09 2 2. IN THIS CASE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE B UT HOWEVER WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFOR E PROCEED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL, EX PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF M ATERIAL ON RECORD AND WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER. 4. ASSESSEE IS AN HUF STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN THE BUSI NESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SELLING OF GREY CLOTH UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF AMBICA TEXTILES. ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2008-0 9 ON 13.03.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 1,07,740/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECT ION 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2010 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINE D AT RS. 4,08,980/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED TH E MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 01.18.2013 DISMISSED TH E APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. C IT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GR OUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE CERTIFICATE OF POST OFFICE AND ALSO ERRED IN TREATI NG THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT AS TIME BARRED. IT SHOULD BE TREATED AS FILED IN TI ME. 2. THAT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,01,243/- MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER BE DELETED OR ALTERNATIVELY BE REDUCED. 5. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A.O NO TICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED LOAN OF RS. 1,35,000/- FROM CHETNA TEXTILE S AND RS. 5,173/- FROM MUKESH. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE GENUINE NESS OF LOANS. A.O HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FILED ONLY THE CONFIRMATION OF CHETNA TEXTILES BUT NO EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS, THE ITA NO 2811/ AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-09 3 GENUINENESS OF LOAN AND THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. HE ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE DEPOSITORS FOR EXAMINATION. H E ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF T HE DEPOSITORS, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND ASSES SEE HAD INTRODUCED THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE FORM OF CASH CREDITS. HE ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERED THE AGGREGATE AMOUNTS OF RS. 1,40,173/- AS UNEXPLAI NED CASH CREDITS U/S. 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY TH E ORDER OF A.O., ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO V IDE ORDER DATED 01.08.2013 DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND WHILE DISMISSI NG HAS NOTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN TIME, THAT THERE WAS NO PRAYER BY ASSESSEE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND NO REASONABLE CAUSE WAS SHOWN FOR DELAYED FILING OF APPEAL. HE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL IN LIMINE BY HOLDING THE APPEAL TO BE BARRED BY LIMITATION WITHO UT DECIDING ON MERITS. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), AS SESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. LD. D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF A.O AND LD. CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL HAS HELD THE A PPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO BE BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THEREFORE N OT MAINTAINABLE. HE DID NOT DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT ID. CIT(A) HAS NO JURISDICTION TO DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE BEFORE HIM. EVEN IN AN EX PARTE ORDER THE ID. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE ON MERITS THEREOF. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN ONE MORE ITA NO 2811/ AHD/2013 . A.Y. 2008-09 4 OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE ID. CIT(A). WE THEREFORE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO ID. CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MER ITS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT ID. CIT(A) SHALL GRANT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISIO N TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO ID. CIT(A), WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING ON MERITS THE O THER GROUND OF THE APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE GROUND OF A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21 - 10 - 2015. SD/- SD/- (S.S. GODARA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: TRUE COPY RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHM EDABAD