Raj Kumar Puglia, Sainthia V. ITO, Ward-3(4), Suri

ITA 294/KOL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [NaN] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2069 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2021
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 32; 147; 131; 68; 246; 69; 145; 27; 148; 54; 37; 6; 56; 263; 63; 132; 12; 28; 144; 10; 90; 154; 2; 11; 15; 271(1)(b); 139; 92; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” (Virtual Court Hearing), BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member I.T.A. No.294/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Raj Kumar Puglia.......................................................................Appellant Old Kandi Road, P.S+P.O- Sainthia,, Dist.-Birbhum. West Bengal-731234. [PAN: AKDPP5708P] vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Suri...............................................................Respondent Appearances by: Shri Sumit Ghosh, AR, appeared on behalf of the appellant. Shri Jayanta Khanra, JCIT, DR, appeared on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : February 03, 2022 Date of pronouncing the order : February 03, 2022 Hearing through Video Conferencing ORDER The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.06.2019 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Burdwan [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’). The assessee in this appeal has taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the appellant is a whole-seller of grocery goods and carrying on business as a sole-proprietor thereof. That the appellant has maintained regular books of accounts such as cash book, ledger, stock inventory, vouchers, tax invoices etc. 2. That the appellant was taken a cash credit loan from SBI, Saintha Branch against hypothecation of stock and collateral securities, which was duly reflected in the books of accounts. 3. For that while passing the impugned order of assessment, the Ld. A.O./Circle-Suri was taken Rs.1210038/- as alleged undisclosed investment (stock) and added back to the total income which is arbitrary, bad-in-law and liable to be deleted. 4. For the facts and circumstances of the case, the assessee's income is to be assessed by the ITO on the basis of material which is required to be considered for the purpose of assessment and ordinarily not on the basis of the statement which the assessee may have I.T.A. No.294/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Raj Kumar Puglia 2 given to a third party unless there is material to corroborate the statement of the assessee given to a third part, even if it be a bank. The burden of showing that the assessee has undisclosed income is on the revenue. The assessee has not deliberately suppressed has income. The assessee filed stock statement to bank was to make it cashier for the assessee to have availed higher credit facility by inflating the stock position to the bank but while passing the impugned order of assessment the Ld. A.O. did not consider the submission and added back Rs.1210038/- to the total income which is arbitrary, bad- in-law and liable to be deleted. 5. For that the impugned order of assessment is contrary to the principles of natural justice and is otherwise bad-in-law as well as on facts. 6. That the appellant craves leave to urge further grounds on the date of hearing.” 2. At the outset, the ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought my attention to the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) to submit that the same is an ex parte order. He has further submitted that even the ld. CIT(A) did not consider the issues on merits but dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of appearance. The ld. Counsel has further submitted that the assessee has not been given adequate opportunity to present their case. He has further submitted that even otherwise the ld. CIT(A) was supposed to decide the issue on merits. The ld. DR could not rebut the above submissions of the assessee. 3. I find merit in the submissions of the assessee that the ld. CIT(A) was supposed to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits. In view of this, the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of CIT(A) to decide afresh. Needless to say that the ld. CIT(A) will give proper opportunity to the assessee to present their case. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Kolkata, the 3 rd February, 2021. Sd/- [Sanjay Garg] Judicial Member Dated: 03.02.2022. RS I.T.A. No.294/Kol/2021 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Raj Kumar Puglia 3 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Raj Kumar Puglia 2. ITO, Ward-3(4), Suri 3. CIT(A)- 4. CIT- , 5. CIT(DR), //True copy// By order Sr.PS/D.D.O, Kolkata Benches