Kamal Sharma, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 2931/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 293120514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 25-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B L YADAV
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

, , , , , , , , , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD .., BEFORE SHRI B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER !./ I.T.A.NO.2931/AHD/2011 ( # $%# # $%# # $%# # $%# / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) KAMAL SHARMA RAMDAS BUILDING O/S.RAIPUR GATE AHMEDABAD-380 001 / VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-9(4) AHMEDABAD & !./' !./ PAN/GIR NO. : ACWPS 4360 H ( &( / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( )*&( / RESPONDENT ) &( + / APPELLANT BY : -NONE- )*&( , + / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.L.YADAV, SR. D.R. -$. , /0 / / / / DATE OF HEARING : 18.09.2013 12% , /0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.09.2013 3 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(APPEALS)-XV, AHMEDABAD DATED 08/09/2011 FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GRO UNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. THAT CIT (APPEAL) OUGHT TO HAVE GIVEN ANOTHER HEARI NG AS THE ASSESSEE ASKED FOR ADJOURNMENTS AS IN RELATION TO A DDITION MADE BASED ON AIR INFORMATION AS JOB RECEIPTS OF RS.1,00,579/- IN NAME OF JALARAM GINNING FACTORY, T HE SAID PARTY BEING NOT OUR CLIENT, WE WERE TRYING TO OBTAI N FURTHER INFORMATION FROM THE SAID PARTY AND THAT ON 02/09/2 011 OUR REPRESENTATIVE MISSED TO TAKE ADJOURNMENT BEFORE CI T (APPEAL). 2. THAT IS PRAYED THAT THE PERMISSION TO SUBMIT ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE BE GRANTED TO ASSESSEE. ITA NO.2913/AHD /2011 KAMAL SHARMA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2008-09 - 2 - 3. THAT DISALLOWANCE OF FINANCE CHARGES OF RS.89,399/- MADE U/S.40(A)(IA) READ WITH SECTION 194A OF IT ACT IS B AD IN LAW. 4. THAT THE EXPENSES OF TELEPHONE, CAR AND CAR DEPRECI ATION RS.13,839/-, 11,378/- AND 9,045/- REPRESENTATIVE DI SALLOWED ARE EXCESSIVE. 5. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.1,00,579/- BASED ON AIR INF ORMATION IS BAD IN LAW AND ALSO ON FACTS. 2. THE ASSESSEE MOVED AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AN D THE SAME IS REJECTED AND THE ISSUE IS DECIDED ON MERITS. THE B RIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DIFFERENT DISALLOWA NCES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,00,579/-, RS.89,399/- AND RS.34,263/- ON ACCOU NT OF INCOME RECEIVED FROM JALARAM GINNING FACTORY, NON-DEDUCTIO N OF TAX U/S.40(A)(IA) OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND OUT OF CAR & TELEPHONE EXPENSES RESPECTIVELY. THE ASSESSEE WAS IN APPEAL BEFORE TH E LD.CIT(A), WHO ISSUED VARIOUS NOTICES BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE D.CIT(A) OBSERVED VIDE PARAGRA PH NO.4 OF HER ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN GIVEN OPPORTUNITIES OF H EARING WHICH WERE NOT AVAILED AND, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO STATE OR SUBMIT AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS WERE UPHELD. 3. THE LD.DR OF THE REVENUE ARGUED THAT SINCE THE V ARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND N ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD BE UPHELD. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE LD.DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ON VARIOUS DATES, ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WA S REQUIRED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTE D THE LETTER OF ITA NO.2913/AHD /2011 KAMAL SHARMA VS. ITO ASST.YEAR - 2008-09 - 3 - ADJOURNMENT AND ON THE LAST ADJOURNED DATE, I.E. ON 02/09/2011, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD.CIT(A ) FORMED AN OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO STATE OR SUBMIT. LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERITS AND THE SAME IS NON-SPE AKING ORDER. IT WILL BE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IF THE APPEAL IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON MERITS, AFTER PRO VIDING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREF ORE, ASSESSEES GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED BUT FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR 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.., $.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS 3 , )/7 87%/ 3 , )/7 87%/ 3 , )/7 87%/ 3 , )/7 87%// COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &( / THE APPELLANT 2. )*&( / THE RESPONDENT. 3. !! / -9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. -9() / THE CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD 5. 7$:; )/ , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. ;<# =. / GUARD FILE. 3- 3- 3- 3- / BY ORDER, *7/ )/ //TRUE COPY// > >> >/ // / ! ! ! ! ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD