Lakshmi Aruna, Bellary V. JCIT, Bangalore

ITA 320/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0164 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR SIBICHEN K MATHEW CITIIIDR
• Assessee Lawyers: MAYANK JAIN
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Condonation of delay
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.320/BANG/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SMT. G. LAKSHMI ARUNA, NO.52, SIRUGUPPA ROAD, HAVAMBHAVI, BELLARY 583 101. PAN: AFJPA 5974P VS. THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BANGALORE. APPELLANTS RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI MAYANK JAIN, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : DR.SIBICHEN K. MATHEW, CIT-III(DR) DATE OF HEARING : 01.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.07.2016 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEES AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.10.2013 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-VI, BANGALORE FOR TH E A.Y. 2009-10 INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) (CIT(A)) IN UPHOLDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) DATED 30.12.2011 O F THE ACT IS OPPOSED TO LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE. ITA NO.320/BANG/2014 PAGE 2 OF 4 2. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPRECIATED THAT THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT CREDITS ARE ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX AND THEREFORE CO ULD NOT HAVE BEEN TAXED. 3. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPRECIATED THAT AN AMOUNT O F RS.1,97,88,332/- IS ALREADY OFFERED TO TAX AND AS S UCH, EXPLAINED. 4. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN APPRECIATED THAT AN AMOUNT O F RS.1,38,15,161/- IS EXPLAINED AND COULD NOT BE TAXE D. THE APPELLANT SEEKS YOUR LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THIS APPEAL IS FILED LATE BY 45 DAYS FOR WHICH APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS FILED. HAVING PERUSED THE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE DELAY AND HAVING BEEN CONVINCED WITH IT, WE CONDONE THE D ELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES WITH THE SUBMISSIONS THAT NEITHER THE AO NOR THE CIT(APPEALS ) HAVE AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. MOREOV ER, SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO EXPLAIN THE ADDITIO NS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND ALSO ON ACCOUNT OF GIFT. HE HA S ALSO FILED THE DETAILED EXPLANATION OF FUNDS IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND ALS O WITH REGARD TO THE GIFT WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF DETAILED EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.320/BANG/2014 PAGE 3 OF 4 4. THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS). 5. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AU THORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS EX PARTE . THOUGH HE HAS RECORDED FEW DATES OF HEARING, BUT HAS NOT RECORDED WITH REGARD TO PROPER SERVICE OF NOTICE OF HEARING. HE HAS, HOWEVER, STATED THAT SH RI ASHOK KUMAR DODDI AND SRI SACHIN KUMAR B.P. APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT NO POWER OF ATTORNEY IN THEIR FAVOUR WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) AND THE CIT(A) DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THEIR APPEARANCE. HAVING REJECTED THE REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS DISPO SED OF THE APPEAL. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE EXPLANATION AND THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTS EXPLA INING THE ADDITION TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND THE GIFT WITH THE SUBMISSIO N THAT THIS EXPLANATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO, BUT HE DID NOT EXAMINE THE SAME AND MADE THE ADDITIONS. 7. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE DETAILED EXPLANATI ON ALONG WITH LEDGER ACCOUNT, CAPITAL ACCOUNT, ETC., WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXP LANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IT REQUIRES FRESH ADJUDICATION. WE ACCO RDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH, AFTER AFFORDING OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO EXTEN D ALL SORTS OF COOPERATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ADJUDICATIN G THE ISSUE. ITA NO.320/BANG/2014 PAGE 4 OF 4 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 29 TH DAY OF JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( A.K. GARODIA ) (SUNIL KUMAR YA DAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 29 TH JULY, 2016. /D S/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.