Shivanand Veerabasapa Palled , Gadag V. The Income Tax Officer Ward-2 , Gadag

ITA 3408/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7169 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: MRINALINI R
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Tax effect; Set aside
• Section: 20

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC-C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 3408 /BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 5 - 1 6 SHRI SHIVANAND VEERBASAPPA PALLED, 2 ND CROSS, NANDEESHWAR NAGAR, KALASPUR ROAD, GADAG 582 103. PAN: ASBPP5211F VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, GADAG. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MS. MRINALINI .R, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A. RAMESH KUMAR, JCIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 .01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 . 01 .201 9 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A),HUBBALLI DATED 25.10.2018 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2015-16. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER. GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAX EFFECT RELATING TO EACH GROUND OF APPEAL (SEE NOTE BELOW) 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,38,569/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE GROUNDS THAT THE APPELLANT HAD SUFFICIENT SOURCE FOR MAKING DEPOSIT IN BANK. . RS.5,73,270/- 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT LEARNED INCOME TAX OFFICER HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE AVAILABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND LOANS TAKEN FROM BANK BUT ONLY RELIED UPON ON THE ALTERNATIVE PLEA TO MAKE ADDITION. -DO- 3. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OFINCOME TAX (APP SPEAKING ORDER AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE GONE INTO THE CASE BEFORE REJECTING THE APPEAL ON THE GR OUND OF NON-APPEARN, DO- ITA NO. 3408/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 3 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE AMOUNT ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD OTHER RS.76,948/- 5. THE ORDERS PASSED BY LEARNED AUTHORITIES BELOW ARENOTSUSTAINABLE IN LAW. DO 6. LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.234A & B OF THE ACT ARE NOT WARRANTED AND EXCESSIVE. RS.3,54,145/- 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORITY HAS WRONGLY CALCULATED TAX AT RS.7,53,518/- AS AGAINST RS.6,50,218/ - AND THIS REQUIRES TO BE DELETED BY THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL. RS.1,03,300/- THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THIS HON'BLE BE PLEASED TO PERMIT THE APPELLANT TO ADD, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY GROUND OR GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR O F ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF CIT (A) IS EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. HE POINTED OUT THAT IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) IN PARA 3 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASS ESSEE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD AND TO MAKE SUBMISSION S ON 20.08.2018 AND 11.10.2018 BUT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR OR RES POND OR MAKE ANY SUBMISSIONS. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT AS PER TH E SAME PARA OF THE ORDER OF CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN FINAL OPPORTUNIT Y OF BEING HEARD ON 25.10.2018 BUT ON THIS DATE ALSO, THERE WAS NO COMP LIANCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT APPEA R BEFORE CIT(A) ON THESE THREE DATES FIXED BY CIT(A) BUT CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ON MERIT INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IN LIMINE. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATT ER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDI NG REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. FIRST OF ALL, I REPRODUCE PARA 3 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AS PER WHICH THIS APPEAL WAS DE CIDED BY HIM. THE SAME IS AS UNDER. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, THE ASS ESSEE WAS GIVEN OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD AND TO MAKE SUBMISSION S ON DT.20.08.2018, & DT. 11.10.2018, BUT THE ASSESSEE F AILED TO APPEAR OR RESPOND OR MAKE ANY SUBMISSIONS. AS THE ASSESSEE HA D FAILED TO SUBMIT EVEN VERIFIED COPIES OF HIS ONLINE APPLICATION FOR APPEAL, OR ANY OTHER SUBMISSION, SINCE FILING HIS APPEAL, HE WAS GIVEN A FINAL OPPORTUNITY OF ITA NO. 3408/BANG/2018 PAGE 3 OF 3 BEING HEARD AND TO MAKE HIS SUBMISSIONS ON DT.25.10 .2018. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FAILED TO APPEAR, RESPOND OR MAK E ANY SUBMISSION IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIMS AND REASONS WHY THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT SUBMITTED THE REQUIRED INFORMATION BEFORE THE AO DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE ASSESSEE, MR. SHI VANAND VEERBASAPPA PALLED, WAS UNABLE TO MAKE ANY SUBMISSI ON IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIMS IN HIS APPEAL FOR A.Y.2015-16. 5. FROM THE ABOVE PARA REPRODUCED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT (A), IT IS SEEN THAT IN FACT, 3 DATES WERE FIXED BY CIT (A) FOR HEARING AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR ON ANY OF THESE DATES BUT EVEN IN THE ABSENC E OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE ON MERIT INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. SINCE THIS WAS NO T DONE BY CIT(A), I SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BA CK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH SIDES. IN VIEW OF THIS DECISION, NO ADJUDICATION I S CALLED FOR REGARDING THE MERIT OF THE CASE AT THE PRESENT STAGE. 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 18 TH JANUARY, 2019. /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.