Chandramani Sahu, Ganjam V. ITO, Ward-1, Bherhampur

ITA 418/CTK/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4312 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: GIRISH KUMAR MAHAPAT RA
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 142(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JM ./ ITA NO. 418 / CTK /20 1 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 3 - 201 4 ) CHANDRAMANI SAHU, AT: EKASINGI, PO:MENDARAJPUR, VIA:GOLANTHARA, DIST: GANJAM, ORISSA - 761008 VS. ITO, WARD - 1, BERHAMPUR ./ PAN NO. : CETPS 0517 P ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI GIRISH KUMAR MAHAPAT RA , AR /REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN , CITDR / DATE OF HEARING : 2 2 / 03 /201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22 / 03 /201 8 / O R D E R PER SHRI PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JM : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APP EAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 1 , BHUBANESWAR DATED 24.07.2017 . 2. THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE AND ALSO THE GROUNDS IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INCOME FROM SALARY AND BUSINESS AND DERIVES INCOME FROM FAST FOOD BUSINESS AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 19.08.2014 BY DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,65,780/ - FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013 - 2014 . SUBSEQUE NTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICES U/S.143(2) & 142(1) WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN COMPLIANCE, LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME ALONG WITH RELEVANT DOCUMENTS LIKE COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS AND ITA NO. 418 /CTK/201 7 2 OTHER DETAILS/WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS ETC.. THE AO ON PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A CASH DEPOSI T S FOR RS.1,80,42,420/ - DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE AMOU NT, THEREFORE, THE AO MADE THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ABOVE CASH DEPOSIT AGGREGATING TO RS.1,80,42,420/ - AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,84,08,200/ - AND PASSED THE ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 30.03.2016. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) . THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (P) LTD. 38 ITR 320 (DEL), AS THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM ON THE DATE FIXED FOR HEARING . 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION THROUGH E - MAIL AND THIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). LD. AR ALSO REFERRED TO THE ANNEXURE - II OF THE PAPER BOOK MENTIONING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED WRITTEN SUBMISSION THROUGH E - MAIL AND, THEREF ORE, PRAYED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 7. PER CONTRA , LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 418 /CTK/201 7 3 8. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND, PRI MA FACIE, THE MAIN CRUX OF THE ISSUE THAT THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE RELYING ON THE DECISION OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (P) LTD. 38 ITR 320 (DEL). HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE CIT(A) THROUGH E - MAIL AND THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). LD. AR ALSO EMPHASISED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED THE NOTICE BY FILING WRITTEN SUBMISSION THROUGH E - MAIL. LD. AR BEFORE US ALSO SUBM ITTED COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THROUGH E - MAIL. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE PROVIDE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF CIT(A ), WHO SHALL CONSIDER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE SHALL COOPERATE IN SUBMITTING THE INFORMATION AT THE EARLIEST FOR EARLY DIS POSAL OF THE APPEAL. 9 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 22 / 03 /201 8 . SD/ - (N. S. SAINI) S D/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 22 / 03 /201 8 . . / PKM , SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITA NO. 418 /CTK/201 7 4 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - CHANDR AMANI SAHU, AT: EKASINGI, PO:MENDARAJPUR, VIA:GOLANTHARA, DIST: GANJAM, ORISSA - 761008 2. / THE RESPONDENT - ITO, WARD - 1, BERHAMPUR 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR , ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//