M/s Sitaram Phoolchand Modi, V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-I,

ITA 37/JAB/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5616 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 12-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D R LATHORIYA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 37 / JAB /201 5 (ASST. YEAR : 200 7 - 08 ) M/S. SITARAM PHOOLCHAND MODI, GRAIN MERCHANT, R/O BANAPURA, SEONI MALWA, DIST. HOSHANGABAD (MP) VS. ITO, WARD - 1, ITARSI. PAN NO. AAWFS 1457 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE . DEPARTMENT BY : S HRI D.R. LATHORIYA - DR DATE OF HEARING : 07 / 0 4 /201 6 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 / 04 /201 6 . O R D E R PER N.S. SAINI , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, BHOPAL , DATED 08 / 1 2/201 4 . 2. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI P.K. DIASHWAL, ADVOCATE HAS FILED AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING AS HE IS NOT IN A POSITION TO ATTEND THE HEARING. THE BENCH WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CAN BE DISPOSED OF IN ABSENCE OF THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THEREFORE, THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED. 2 ITA NO. 90 / JAB /201 4 3. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. 2 CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PURCHASE AND USE OF BARDANA FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS IS NOT IN DISPUTE HENCE SIMPLY BECAUSE FOR THE REASON THAT THE BARDANA WAS PURCHASED IN CASH FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 3,47,475/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . 3 THE CIT(A) ORDER DATED 08 /12/2014 IS BAD IN LAW HENCE MAY KINDLY BE CANCELLED. 4 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ AMEND/MODIFY ANY GROUND OF APPEAL . 4 . A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SHOWS THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PUT IN APPEARANCE ON THE DATES OF HEARING FIXED ON 24/01/2014, 27/02/2014, 11/06/2014, 17/07/2014, 20/08/2014, 16/09/2014, 15/10/2014, 10/11/2014, 27/11/2014 & 04/12/2014 . WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LTD. VS. ITAT & OTHERS IN W.P.NO. 1740/2013, ORDER DATED 23/09/2013 HAS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO DISMISS APPEAL FOR NON - APPEARANCE OF APPELLANT. IT HAS TO DEAL WITH THE MERITS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HE ARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 3 ITA NO. 90 / JAB /201 4 5 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THURSDAY , THE 0 7 TH DAY OF APRIL , 201 6 AT JABALPUR . S D/ - SD/ - ( N.K. CHOUDHRY ) (N.S.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER D ATED : 07 TH APRIL , 201 6 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESS E E. 2. THE REVENUE. 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R . 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER