Premalata Ray, Cuttack V. ITO, Ward-2(1), Cuttack

ITA 456/CTK/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7588 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K PRADHAN
• Assessee Lawyers: P C SETHI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK SMC BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N. S SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.456 /CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 SMT. PREMALATA RAY, C/O. P.K.RAY, BIKASH NAGAR, BADAMBAD, CUTTACK - 12. VS. ITO, WARD 2(1), CUTTACK PAN/GIR NO. AFZPR 4394 A (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C.SETHI, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI D.K.PRADHAN , DR DATE OF HEARING : 2 5 /10 / 2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25 /10 / 2016 O R D E R THIS I S AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - CUTTACK, DATED 30.10.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH IS ILLEGAL, CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT, WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND /OR ANNULLED. 2. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED SERIOU S ERROR IN NOT CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN NOTES OF SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE APPELLANT DATED 06.12.2015 IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT FOR WHICH ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) ALONG WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 2 ITA NO.456/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12 3. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT GIVING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD FOR WHICH THE APPELLATE ORDER AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND / OR ANNULLED. 4. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS FAILED TO RECORD THE PRESENCE OF THE APPELLANT BEFORE HIM AND THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND OTHERWISE ILLEGAL HENCE LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. 5. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT ALLOWING THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT OF RS. 1,00,000/ - IN ACCORDANCE WITH GROUND FILED BY THE APPELLANT. 6. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A; HAS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT DELETING TIE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 28.00.000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT ON MUTUAL FUNDS AND FOR WHICH SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED BY THE LD CIT(A).. 7. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A; HAS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT DELETING TIE ADDITION MADE BY T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 15,10,675/ - AND FOR WHICH SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 8. THAT, THE LEARNED CIT (A; HAS COMMITTED SERIOUS ERROR IN NOT QUASHING THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(B) AND 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND FOR WHICH THE SAME IS LI ABLE TO BE QUASHED. 9. THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IS PRAYED TO ALLOW THE COST OF THE APPEAL TO THE APPELLANT. 10. THAT THE APPELLANT MAY ADD, ALTER, DELETE OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE MATTER WITH THE LEAVE OF THE ITAT. 3 . AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED BY THE LD CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PUT IN APPEARANCE ON THE DATES OF HEARING FIXED BY HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BUT SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE SAME ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT(A). 3 ITA NO.456/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD REPRESENTATIVES OF PARTIES, I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS AFFORDED MANY OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROSECUTE ITS CASE. HOWEVER, THE LD CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN A VERY CRYPTIC MANNER. AS PER S ECTION 250(6), IT IS OBLIGATORY F OR COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER STATING POINTS RAISED IN APPEALS, HIS DECISION THEREON AND REASONS FOR SUCH DECISIONS. THE UNDERLYING RATIONALE OF THE PROVISION IS THAT SUCH ORDERS ARE SUBJECT T O FURTHER APPEAL TO THE HIGHER FORUM . SPEAK ING ORDER WOULD OBVIOUSLY ENABLE A PARTY TO KNOW PRECISE POINTS DECIDED IN HIS FAVOUR OR AGAINST HIM. IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, THE LD CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN MY CONSIDERED OP INION, IT IS A FIT CASE TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFRESH AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. I ORDER ACCORDINGLY . 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCE D IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 /10 /2016 IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES. SD/ - ( N. S SAINI ) A CCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 25 /10 /2016 B.K.PARIDA, SPS 4 ITA NO.456/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011 - 12 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER, ASST.REGISTRAR, ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : SMT. PREMALATA RAY, C/O. P.K.RAY, BIKASH NAGAR, BADAMBAD, CUTTACK - 12. 2. THE RESPONDENT: ITO, WARD 2(1), CUTTACK 3. THE CIT(A) , CUTTACK 4. CIT , CUTTACK 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//