SHRI Anand Kumar Pachouri, Hoshagabad V. THE ITO-1, Itarsi

ITA 370/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5629 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHD JAVED
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE .., .., % BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI ANAND KUMAR PACHORI, PIPARIYA .. ./ PAN: AQPPP3006L VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER - 1, ITARSI. / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY SHRI ASHISH GOYAL AND SHRI N. D. PATWA, ADV. / RESPONDENT BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 08.11.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 08.11.2016 / O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, BHOPAL .. . / I.T.A. NO.370/IND/2016 %' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 I.T.A.NO.370/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SH ANAND KUMAR PACHORI, PIPARIYA PAGE 2 OF 5 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] DATED 27.01 .2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 AS AGAINST APPE AL DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT DATED 24.03.2014 OF ITO-1, ITARSI [HEREINAFTER REFERRED T O AS THE AO]. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOUR GROUNDS OF APPEAL, WHIC H ARE RELATED TO NOT PASSING THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/ S 144 AND HENCE SUSTAINING OF ADDITION OF RS. 35.35 LAKHS AND RS. 91,990/-. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS P ER AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 35,35,800/- IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BAN K, THE SOURCE OF WHICH WAS CLAIMED TO BE OUT OF CASH DEPOSIT S RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS CASH DEPOSITORS AS THE ASSESS EE WAS DOING BROKERAGE AND COMMISSION BUSINESS. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED THE DE POSITS FROM THE COMPANY, VIZ. MY DREAMS CONCEPT INFO PVT.LTD. I NDIA AND REAL LIFE CONSUMER PRIVATE LIMITED, BUT HE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY AGREEMENT OR CONTRACT WITH THE SAID CONCERNS. TH EREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS CAME TO BE SUSTAINED. I.T.A.NO.370/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SH ANAND KUMAR PACHORI, PIPARIYA PAGE 3 OF 5 4. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FURNISH THE CONFIR MATION FROM M/S. MY DREAMS CONCEPT INFO PRIVATE LIMITED. O N BEHALF OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS COLLECTED CASH DEPOSI TS FROM VARIOUS PERSONS AND GIVEN THE SAME TO THESE COMPANI ES. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATIONS DURING THE APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS AND HIS AFFIDAVIT, BUT THESE WERE NOT C ONSIDERED. THEREFORE, IT WAS REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE RE STORED BACK TO THE AO FOR DE NOVO EXAMINATION. 5. THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS ALSO NO OBJECTION TO SAME. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM IS THE BASIC CONCEPT OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE EXPRESSION AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM IMPLIES THAT A PERSON MUST BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY T O DEFEND HIMSELF. THIS PRINCIPLE IS SINE QUA NON OF EVERY CIVILIZED SOCIETY. THE RIGHT TO NOTICE, RIGHT TO P RESENT CASE AND EVIDENCE, RIGHT TO REBUT ADVERSE EVIDENCE, RIGHT TO CROSS EXAMINATION, RIGHT TO LEGAL REPRESENTATION , DISCLO SURE OF I.T.A.NO.370/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SH ANAND KUMAR PACHORI, PIPARIYA PAGE 4 OF 5 EVIDENCE TO PARTY, REPORT OF ENQUIRY TO BE SHOWN TO THE OTHER PARTY AND REASONED DECISIONS OR SPEAKING ORDERS. WE FIND THAT THE RIGHT OF HEARING IS DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT IN THE CASE OF MANEKA GANDHI VS. UNION OF INDIA, WHE REIN HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT RULE OF FAIR HE ARING IS NECESSARY BEFORE PASSING ANY ORDER. WE FIND THAT IT IS PRE- DECISION HEARING STANDARD OF NORM OF RULE OF AUDI ALTERM PARTEM. WE FIND THAT IN THIS INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER HEARING. THEREFORE, WE ARE AM OF THE V IEW THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST BE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY OF HEAR ING AND TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. THEREFORE, WE ALLOW THIS APPEA L. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) WITHIN 2 MONTHS AFTER THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNI TY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. I.T.A.NO.370/IND/2016 A.Y.2011-12 SH ANAND KUMAR PACHORI, PIPARIYA PAGE 5 OF 5 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE 08 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. SD/- (..) (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (..) (O.P.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * / DATED : 08 TH NOVEMBER, 2016. CPU* 10