Sanjeev Kumar Sahoo, Kendrapada V. ITO, Ward-2, Paradeep, Paradeep

ITA 369/CTK/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7554 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 15-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B N DASH
• Assessee Lawyers: SASWAT ACHARYA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.369/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009 - 2010 SANJEEV KUMAR SAHOO, AT/PO: BADAHAT, KENDRAPARA. VS. ITO, WARD - 2, PARADEEP. PAN/GIR NO. ADQPS 4142 J (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SASWAT ACHARYA, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI B.N.DASH , DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 5 /11 / 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 /11 / 2016 O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - CUTTACK, DATED 13.6.2014 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE FORUM BELOW IS EX - FACIE ILLEGAL, BEREFT OF ANY MERIT, DUE TO NON - APPLICATION OF MIND AND AS SUCH LIABLE TO BE QUASHED IN LIMINE. 2) FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL ON THE GROUND OF NON PROSECUTION WITHOUT ADJUDICATING THE GROUNDS TAKEN IN APPEAL. 2 ITA NO.369/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 2010 3) FOR THAT THE LD. A.O. HAS ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT @ 5% IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO ADVERSE MATERIAL WERE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD. A.O. IN ARISING SUCH A FIGUR E, AND THUS, IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR THE LD. CIT[A) TO UPHOLD THE SAME. 4. FOR THAT THE AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE INTEREST ON BORROWED CAPITAL TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,94,924/ - AND STATUTORY DUTIES SUCH AS VAT/SALES TAX AT R S.20,02,215/ - WHICH SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BEFORE MAKING A JUDICIOUS ESTIMATION, AND THUS, THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO UPHOLD THE SAME. 5. FOR THAT THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD CIT(A) HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION BY THE APPELLANT UNDER CHAPTER VI - A AMOUNTING TO RS.28,683/ - AND AS SUCH SAME MAY KINDLY BE ALLOWED. 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE ON THE DATES FIXED FOR HEARING BY THE LD CIT(A) AND, THEREFORE, THE LD CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HE PRAYED THAT NON - APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MALAFIDE INTENTION BUT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT WELL AND WAS UNDERGOING MEDICAL TREATMENT, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BRIEF HIS COUNSEL ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL AND HENCE, THERE WAS NON - COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE LD CIT (A). HENCE, IT WAS HIS PRAYER THAT IN THE INTEREST OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, ONE MORE O PPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE BY RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A). 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD D.R. HAD NO OBJECTION TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 3 ITA NO.369/CTK/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2009 - 2010 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, NO HARM WILL BE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE IF ONE MORE OPP ORTUNITY IS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO B OTH THE PARTIES. 6. IN T HE RESULT, THE APPEAL F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 /11 /2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - ( N.S SAINI) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 15 /11 /2016 B.K.PARIDA, SPS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : SANJEEV KUMAR SAHOO, AT/PO: BADAHAT, KENDRAPARA. 2. THE RESPONDENT. ITO, WARD - 2, PARADEEP 3. THE CIT(A) CUTTACK 4. CIT , CUTTACK 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//