Chandrakant Ramchandra Pujari, Mumbai V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 5, Panvel

ITA 440/PUN/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2053 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 03-06-2021
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P WALIMBE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE (THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM . / ITA NO.440/PUN/2018 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-15 CHANDRAKANT RAMCHANDRA PUJARI, RAJLAXMI ENTERPRISES, PLOT NO.814, ROAD NO.8, KWC, STEEL MARKET, KALAMBOLI, NAVI MUMBAI-410218. PAN : AKMPP3455C ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. ITO, WARD-5, PANVEL. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI S. P. WALIMBE / DATE OF HEARING : 03.06.2021 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.06.2021 / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)- 2, THANE (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 21.12.2017 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. 2. THE APPELLANT RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN NOT ALLOWING SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREFORE THE SAID ORDER IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS VOID-AB-INITIO AND BAD IN LAW. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO.1, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING ADDITION U/S 41(1) / 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF THE OUTSTANDING BALANCES OF CREDITORS AMOUNTING TO RS.45,25,259 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT (A) IN THIS BEHALF. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO.1, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UPHOLDING ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF THE ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMER AMOUNTING TO RS.12,00,000 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE LEARNED AO AS WELL AS LEARNED CIT (A) IN THIS BEHALF. 2 ITA NO.440/PUN/2018 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE OR SUBSTITUTE ALL OR ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. BRIEFLY, FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER :- THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IRON AND STEEL. THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 WAS ELECTRONICALLY FILED ON 24.06.2015 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,38,890/-. AGAINST THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- 5, PANVEL (THE ASSESSING OFFICER) VIDE ORDER DATED 20.12.2016 PASSED U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.62,65,150/-. WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY HOLDING THAT THE SUNDRY CREDITORS CEASES TO EXIST INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 41(1) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/- BEING ADVANCE RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS BY HOLDING THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS, NAMES AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ADVANCE WAS RECEIVED, INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ADDITIONS, THE APPELLANT WAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDER DISMISSED THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION AFTER DISCUSSING THE MERITS OF THE CASE. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ABOVE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 6. EVEN BEFORE US NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE DUE SERVICE OF NOTICE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. SR. DR, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL. 7. WE HEARD THE LD. SR. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE APPEAL WAS DISPOSED 3 ITA NO.440/PUN/2018 IN THE ABSENCE OF APPELLANT ON HIS BEHALF, THE LD. CIT(A) HAD GONE INTO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. FROM PAGE NO.2 OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CASE WAS POSTED FOR HEARING FOR 15.12.2017, ON WHICH THE CASE WAS AGAIN ADJOURNED FOR 20.12.2017 ON WHICH DATE NONE HAD APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. THEN THE LD. CIT(A) HAD PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE MATTER. IT IS NOT DISCERNABLE FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHETHER ON 15.12.2017 THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING I.E. 20.12.2017 WAS DULY INTIMATED TO THE APPELLANT OR NOT? IN ANY EVENT, GRANT OF 5 DAYS TIME DOES NOT CONSTITUTE THE REASONABLE TIME WHICH OFFENDS THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ON THIS GROUND ALONE, WE SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DE-NOVO CONSIDERATION OF THE MATTER AFTER AFFORDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2021. SD/- SD/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (INTURI RAMA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 14 TH JUNE, 2021. SUJEET / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)-2, THANE. 4. THE PR. CIT-2, THANE. 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.