Shri Sanjay Chunilal Shah, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-1(2), Surat

ITA 3166/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1376 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA.NO.3166/AHD/2011 / ASSTT. YEAR: 2008-2009 SANJAY CHUNILAL SHAH C/O. SUN FASHIONS X-3155, SURAT TEXTILE MKT. RING ROAD, SURAT. PAN : ADZP 8360 F VS ITO, WARD - 1(2) SURAT. ! / (APPELLANT) '# ! / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL REVENUE BY : SHRI PRASOON KABRA, SR.DR / DATE OF HEARING : 10/06/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13/06/2016 $%/ O R D E R THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-I, SURAT DATED 10.10.2011 PASSED FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2008-09. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOUR GROUNDS OF AP PEAL, BUT, ITS GRIEVANCES REVOLVE AROUND TWO ISSUES VIZ. (A) THAT THE LD.AO HAS ERRED IN NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF COST OF PURCHASE AMOUNTING TO RS.3,49,358/-, (B) THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF R S.1,06,278/-. THE LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILED SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE SUBMISSION H AVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE LD.CIT(A) FROM PAGE NOS.3 TO 7 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE FIRST ISSUE READS AS UNDER: ITA NO.3166/AHD/2011 2 DECISION: ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THERE IS CONSIDERABLE FOR IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. RELYING ON THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ADDITION OF RS.3,349,358/- IS CONFIRMED. 3. SIMILARLY, ON THE SECOND ISSUE, THE FINDING RECO RDED BY THE LD.CIT(A) READS AS UNDER: DECISION: ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. THERE IS CONSIDERABLE FOR IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE DEFENCE PUT UP BY THE APPEL LANT IS TOO WEAK TO MAKE ANY DENT IN THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. RELYING ON THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ADDITION OF RS.1,06,278/- IS CONFIRMED. 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECORD, I AM OF OPINION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN REJECTED IN A SUMMARY MANNER WITHOUT ASSIGNING ANY REASONS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAI NABLE ON BOTH THE GROUNDS. I ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, AND SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) AND RESTORE ALL THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13 TH JUNE, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/06/2016