Sri Krishna Prajwal , Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer Circle-5(2)(3), Bangalore

ITA 2986/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7831 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-12-2018
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BALACHANDRAN SMT K LAKS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Non compliance

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 2 9 8 6 / BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 2 - 1 3 SHRI KRISHNA PRAJWAL, NO. 302, 2 ND CROSS, C.T. BED, THYAGARAJANAGAR, BANGALORE 560 028. PAN: BYVPP4840F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 5 (2) (3), BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI BALACHANDRAN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. K. LAKSHMI, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 10 . 1 2 .2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28 . 1 2 .2018 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME I S DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-10, BANGALORE DATED 01.08.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEEIS AS UNDER. 1. ORIGINALLY THE JURISDICTION WAS WITH CIT (A)-5 A ND TWO NOTICES WERE RECEIVED FROM THE SAID OFFICE AND BOTH WERE ATTENDED. THERE IS A CHANGE IN JURISDICTION FROM CI T (A)-5 TO CIT (A)-10 AND THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED ONLY ONE NOTICE FIXING THE HEARING ON 12/09/2017 AND NO OTHER NOTICES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AS STATED BY THE CIT (A). TO THE NOTICE ISSUED FIXING HEARING ON 28TH OF FEB 2018 THE APPEL LANT COULD NOT ATTEND SINCE THE PARENTS WERE ILL. THUS THERE W AS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON COMPLIANCE IF ANY. BE THAT AS IT MAY, THE APPEAL HAS TO BE DECIDED ON MERITS AND THE APPE LLANT PRODUCES NECESSARY EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAI M THAT THE LOANS WERE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND THE LOANEE IS A TAXPAYER WITH PAN AND ASSESSED TO TAX. HENCE IT IS PRAYED THAT THE HON ITAT BE PLEASED TO GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTU NITY TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE AND ALLOW THIS APPEAL IN THE I NTEREST OF EQUITY AND JUSTICE. ITA NO. 2986/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F ASSESSEE THAT THIS IS TRUE THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE CIT(A) BUT HE P OINTED OUT THAT AS PER PARA 5.3 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY CIT(A) IN CRYPTIC MANNER WITHOUT CONSIDERING GROUNDS OF APPEA L AND STATEMENT OF FACTS ETC. SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) ALON G WITH THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECIS ION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS OF PRESENT CASE AS PER WHICH IT I S NOTED BY CIT(A) IN PARA 5.3 OF ITS ORDER THAT SEVERAL NOTICES WERE ISSUED A ND DULY SERVED ON ASSESSEE, IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED TO RESTORE THE MATTE R BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FOR RE ADY REFERENCE, I REPRODUCE THE PARAS 5.2 AND 5.3 OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A). 5.2 ON THE HAND THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AS UNDER: STATEMENT OF FACTS: 1. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 THE LEARNED A.0 COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT BY ADDING RS. 30,44,915/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN THE PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL LANDS BY THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF SOUR CES OF INVESTMENT. CASE OF THE APPELLANT: 1. THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN LOAN THROUGH CHEQUES WHI CH HAVE PASSED THROUGH THE APPELLANT BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN INVESTED IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THE LOANEE IS A TAX PAYER AND HAS GOT PAN AND HE IS ALSO ASSESSED TO TAX. THUS THE SOURCES FO R THE INVESTMENT IN THE AGRICULTURE LAND HAS BEEN FULLY EXPLAINED AND T HEREFORE TO BE DELETED. 5.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE AND THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO. IN THIS REGARD REPEATED OPPO RTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT TO PRESENT HIS CASE. FROM TH E SPEED POST TRACKING RECORD IT IS EVIDENT THAT NOTICES WERE DUL Y SERVED ON THE APPELLANT BUT HE CHOSE NOT TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE S OF HEARING.IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION/EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER FOR THE INVESTMENT IN THE AGRICULTURAL LAND, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE AO IS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.30,44,915/-. ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE ADDITION OF RS.30,44,915/- STANDS CONFIRMED. ITA NO. 2986/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 5. FROM THE ABOVE PARAS REPRODUCED FROM THE ORDER O F CIT(A), IT IS SEEN THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS THI S THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN THROUGH CHEQUES WHICH HAVE PASSED THROUG H THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SAME HAS BEEN INVESTED IN THE AGRICULTURE LAND. THERE IS NO FINDING GIVEN BY CIT(A) ON THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER AS TO WHETHER THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT OR NO T. HENCE I FEEL IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT (A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES . IN VIEW OF THIS, NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR AT THE PRESENT STAGE REG ARDING THE MERIT OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 28 TH DECEMBER, 2018. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.