The ACIT, Circle-5, Surat V. Shri Natversingh Nathusingh Thakor, Surat

ITA 428/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 60284 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 16-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

ITA NO.428/ AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT .YEAR - 2008-09 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR.SHRAWAT JM & SHRI ANIL CHATUR VEDI A.M.) I.T.A. NO. 42 8/AHD/2012. (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 -09) ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 5, ROOM NO.309, 3 RD FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MAJURA GATE, SURAT. (APPELLANT) VS. SHRI NATVERSINGH NATHUSINGH THAKOR, BALKASH, TALUKA OLPAD, DIST. SURAT. (RESPONDENT) PAN: AALPT1738M APPELLANT BY : SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, SR. D .R. RESPONDENT BY : NONE. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 15-3-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/4/2012 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT(A)-IV, SURAT DATED 11-10-2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A)-IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES OF THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT GIVIN G ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O., WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS AN EX -PARTE ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE TH E A.O. ITA NO.428/ AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT .YEAR - 2008-09 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A)-IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPENSES OF RS.22,68,005/- MADE BY THE A.O. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A)-IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.10,19,847/- MADE BY TH E A.O. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE CIT (A)-IV, SURAT HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES OF RS.5,41,770/- MADE BY THE A.O. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE CIT (A)-IV, SURAT OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 6. IT IS THEREFORE, PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CI T-IV, SURAT MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORE D. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 9-7-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.14,81,210/-.T HEREAFTER THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLE TED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT, ON 27-12-2010 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.6 2,05,890/-. 4. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSE E PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT (A). 5. BEFORE THE CIT (A), A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE PRODUCE D SOME NEW EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. CIT (A) DID NOT CALL FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. AND PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT G IVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . ITA NO.428/ AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT .YEAR - 2008-09 3 6. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT (A), NOW THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. REVENUE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS ONE OF THEM BEING THE ADMITTING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY CIT (A) WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO AO. THE LD. D.R URGED THAT CIT (A) HAD NOT CALLED F OR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. AND SIMPLY PASSED ORDER WITHOUT GIVIN G ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O. IN THIS REGARD. CIT (A) SHOULD HAVE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO AO MORESO WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS AN EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 144 AND THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. D.R THEREFORE URGED THAT THE MATTER BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR EXAMINATION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FU RNISHED BEFORE CIT (A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE CONTENTIONS OF LD. D.R. AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT AS THE CIT (A) HAD NOT CALL ED FOR THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A.O MORE SO WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORD ER WAS AN EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED U/S 144 AND NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED B EFORE THE AO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MA TTER BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS SPEAKIN G ORDER AFTER GIVING SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE MATTER I S REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO, OTHER GROUNDS ARE NOT ADJUDICATED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27 - 4 - 2012. SD/- SD/- (MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.428/ AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT .YEAR - 2008-09 4 AHMEDABAD. S.A.PATKI. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS)-IV,SURAT. 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHMEDABAD. 1.DATE OF DICTATION 15 - 3 -2012 2.DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE TH E DICTATING 24 / 4 / 2012 MEMBER.OTHER MEMBER. 3.DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P.S./P.S 24 - 4 -2012. 4.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 27 - 4 -2012 5.DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR .P.S./P.S 2 7- 4 -2012 6.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 7 - 4 -2012. 7.DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK . 8.THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSTT. REG ISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER 9.DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER..