Sh. Shamsher Singh, Kurukshetra V. ITO, Kurukshetra

ITA 339/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6630 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHANDER KANTASR
• Assessee Lawyers: B M MONGA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.339/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI SHEMSHER SINGH, VS. THE ITO, P/O M/S CHAUDHARY TRADING CO., WARD 1, NEW GRAIBN MARKET, KURUKSHETRA. KURUKSHETRA. PAN NO. AZVPS9722R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI B.M.MONGA & SHRI ROHIT KAURA RESPONDENT BY : SMT. CHANDER KANTA,SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.11.2017 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILIN G THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) KARNAL DATED 14.12.201 6 PERTAINING TO 2010-11 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON VARIOUS GROUNDS ON MERIT. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. AR CONFINED HIS PRAY ER ONLY TO THE ACTION OF THE CIT(A) IN ENHANCING THE SALES AND MAINTAIN ING AN ADDITION OF RS. 7,73,366/-. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT NO S PECIFIC NOTICE FOR ENHANCING THE SALES WAS GIVEN. ACCORDINGLY, HIS LIMITED PRAYER WAS THE ISSUE MAY BE REMANDED TO THE CIT(A) FOR A DECISION DENOVO. 3. THE LD. SR.DR CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT INCOME WAS EN HANCED WITHOUT GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD , HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE REMAND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IS MADE. HOW EVER, BEFORE RISING OF THE BENCH, IT WAS NOTICED BY HER THAT THE ADDIT ION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO OF RS. 16,03,389/- ON ACCOUNT OF THE SPE CIFIC REASONS MENTIONED IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SINCE A DDITION STOOD RESTRICTED TO RS. 7,73,366/-, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF ENHANCEMENT. ITA 339/CHD/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 2 OF 2 4. THE LD. AR IN RESPONSE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS AWARE OF THE PARTIAL RELIEF HAVING BEEN GIVEN, HOWEVER, IT WAS HIS OBJECTION THAT THE SALES HAVE BEEN ENHANCED AS RESULT OF THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION OF THE CIT(A) : AFTER CONSIDERING THAT THE PROFIT MARGINS IN THE LI NE POULTRY FEED IS BETTER THAN MOST OTHER TRADING ACTIVITIES AND THEREFORE TAKEN A T 8% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. 8% OF RS.76,62,850/- = RS.6,13,028/- 10% OF RS.16,03,389/- TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT IN OWN BUSINESS ACTIVITY = 1,60,338/- TOTAL = RS.7,73,366/-. 4.1 ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT THE RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE MAY ALSO BE SET ASIDE SINCE ISSUES ARE INTER-LINK ED AS THE FINDING HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE ON THE SPECIFIC ISSUE. 5. CONSIDERING THE AFOREMENTIONED PRAYER, LD. SR.DR HAD NO OBJECTION FOR THE REMAND. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN IN THE C OURSE OF THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT ORDER THE DEPOSITS AND WITHD RAWALS IN THE SPECIFIC BANK ACCOUNT BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORM ATION. OUT OF THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 76,62,850/-, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS OF RS. 16,03,389/-. THE ADDITION, ACCORDINGLY, U/S 69 WAS MADE. 6.1 THE ISSUE WAS CHALLENGED IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). SIN CE THE ENTIRE ORDER AS PER PRAYER OF THE PARTIES HAS BEEN SET ASIDE, REFER ENCE FOR DISCUSSION THEREIN WOULD NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE. SUFFICE IT TO SAY THAT THE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 21.11. 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT,CHANDIGARH.