Dr. Manjusha Pandey, Faizabad V. Income Tax Officer-I, Faizabad

ITA 311/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1105 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 18-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.311/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI T. S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.311/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 DR. MANJUSHA PANDEY, 1/13/190, NEAR SBI, CIVIL LINES, FAIZABAD. PAN:ALFPP 1766 L VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER-1, FAIZABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) O R D E R PER T. S. KAPOOR, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A) DATED 16/12/2014 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN ARBITRARILY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT I N THE BANK ACCOUNT, WITHOUT ALLOWING THE APPELLANT A REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN ARBITRARILY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,50,000/- IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED L OAN , WITHOUT APPELLANT BY SHRI SHYAM LAL, F.C.A. RESPONDENT BY SMT. MANJU THAKUR, D.R. DATE OF HEARING 26/02/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27 / 02 /201 8 I.T.A. NO.311/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 2 ALLOWING THE APPELLANT A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN ARBITRARILY CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 80 C & 80 D OF THE IT. ACT,1961, WITHOUT ALLOWING THE APPELLANT A REASONAB LE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDUCE THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LEARNED A. R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 144 OF THE A CT AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE ENGAGED A COUNSEL FOR APPEARING BEFORE LEA RNED CIT(A) HE ALSO DID NOT PROPERLY REPRESENT THE ASSESSEE AND IN THIS RES PECT LEARNED A. R. INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINDINGS OF LEARNED CIT(A) WHE REIN HE HAS NOTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS L ET DOWN BY SHRI S. K. MISHRA AND THEREFORE, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE ASSESS EE BE GIVEN A SECOND CHANCE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND T O REPLY TO HIS QUERIES. LEARNED A. R. IN THIS RESPECT RELIED ON THE JUDGMEN T OF HON'BLE M.P. HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MAHAVEERPRASAD JAIN VS. CIT FO R THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE AN APPLICANT ENGAGES A COUNSEL, HE WOULD BE J USTIFIED IN PRESUMING THAT THE COUNSEL WOULD ATTEND TO THE CASE AND THE A PPLICANT CANNOT BE MADE TO SUFFER FOR THE NEGLIGENCE OF THE COUNSEL. 3. LEARNED D. R. HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE CASE IS RE MANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE T HROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE A SSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 AND LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALSO UPHELD THE ADDI TION. HOWEVER, IN HIS ORDER THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS LE T DOWN BY HER COUNSEL. HOWEVER, HE UPHELD THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVE OR APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWE VER, KEEPING IN VIEW THE I.T.A. NO.311/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2011-12 3 SPECIFIC FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN HER CASE. THEREFORE, WE REMIT THE CASE BACK TO THE OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHOULD PASS A FRESH ORDER AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE WILL BE PROVIDED SUFFICIEN T OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND FILE HER SUBMISSIONS WITHIN A REASONABLE PERIOD OF TIME. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/02/2018) SD/. SD/. (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) ( T. S. KAPOOR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER A CCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED:27/02/2018 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR