PRASHANT B RANJANE, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 23(1)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 5328/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 55349 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 13-07-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATBIR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: GOPAL
• Keywords: Non compliance
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. I.T.A. NOS. 5328, 5329 & 5330/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99, 1999-2000&2000-01. SHRI PRASHANT B. RANJANE, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, B/102, HEMA PARK, VS. WARD-23(1), MUMBAI. VEER SAVARKAR MARG, BHANDUP (EAST), MUMBAI. PAN : ADRPR 0252M APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. I.T.A. NO. 53 23, 5324 & 5332/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99, 1999-2000&2000-01. SHRI PRAMOD B. RANJANE, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI. VS. WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI. PAN AAHPQR 0972P. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. I.T.A. NOS. 532 5, 5326 & 5327/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1 998-99, 1999-2000&2000-01. SMT. VIJAYA B. RANJANE, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, MUMBAI. VS. WARD-23(1)(3), MUMBAI. PAN AJYPR 5645R. APPELLANT RESPONDENT. 2 ITA NOS.5328 TO 5330/MUM/2011 5323,5324&5332/MUM/2011. 5325 TO 5327/MUM/2004 & ITA NO. 5331/MUM/2011. ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99 TO 2000-01. I.T.A. NO. 5331/MUM/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1998-99. SMT.VANITA H. THAKKAR, THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, (EARLIER KNOWN AS VANITA H. RANJANE), VS. WARD-23(1)(4), MUMBAI. A/503, VINAYAK ASHISH, M.M.M.ROAD, MUMBAI 400 080 PAN AADPR 9771J. APPELLANT. RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI GOPAL. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SATBIR SINGH. DATE OF HEARING : 12-09-2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-09-2011. O R D E R THESE TEN APPEALS FILED BY THE FOUR ASSESSEES BELO NGING TO ONE FAMILY AGAINST TEN SEPARATE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEA LS)-33, MUMBAI, ALL DATED 20- 04-2011 INVOLVE COMMON ISSUES AND THE SAME, THEREF ORE, HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS SINGLE COMPOSITE ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. ALL THE FOUR ASSESSEES IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE I NDIVIDUALS WHO ARE FAMILY MEMBERS OF ONE SHRI BABAN TUKARAM RANJANE, DY. SUP ERINTENDENT OF STAMPS, MUMBAI. THEY ALL ARE CLOSELY RELATED TO HIM INASMUC H AS SMT. VIJAYA B. RANJANE IS HIS WIFE, SHRI PRAMOD B. RANJANE AND SHRI PRASHANT B. RANJANE ARE HIS SONS AND SMT. VANITA H. THAKKAR IS HIS MARRIED DAUGHTER. SHR I BABAN TUKARAM RANJANE WAS ALLEGEDLY INVOLVED IN THE TELGI SCAM AND IN PURSUAN T TO INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-27(1), MUM BAI WHERE HE WAS BEING 3 ITA NOS.5328 TO 5330/MUM/2011 5323,5324&5332/MUM/2011. 5325 TO 5327/MUM/2004 & ITA NO. 5331/MUM/2011. ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99 TO 2000-01. ASSESSED, ASSESSMENTS OF THE FOUR ASSESSEES FOR THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE REOPENED BY THE AO BY ISSUING NOTICES U/S 148. ALTH OUGH THE ASSESSEES FILED THEIR RETURNS IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICES ISSUED BY T HE AO U/S 148, THEY COULD NOT EXPLAIN ENTRIES FOUND RECORDED IN THEIR BANK ACCOUN TS TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. ACCORDINGLY ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEES WERE TREATED BY THE AO AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY HIM TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED U/S 143( 3) READ WITH SECTION 147. 3. AGAINST THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) R EAD WITH SECTION 147, APPEALS WERE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEES BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS). AS NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDERS, THERE WAS, HOWEVER, NO COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEES TO THE NOTI CES ISSUED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FIXING THE HEARING FROM TIME TO TIME. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), THEREFORE, PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF TH E APPEALS EXPARTE AND DISMISSED THE SAME CONFIRMING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES IN THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETE D U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APP EALS), THE ASSESSEES HAVE PREFERRED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. ALTHOUGH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE AN ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THE NON COMPLIANCE ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEES TO THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FIXING THE HEARI NG FROM TIME TO TIME DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS CULMINATING INTO EX PARTE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES BY HIM, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT AND SUBSTANTIATE THE SAID EXPLANATION. IT I S ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE 4 ITA NOS.5328 TO 5330/MUM/2011 5323,5324&5332/MUM/2011. 5325 TO 5327/MUM/2004 & ITA NO. 5331/MUM/2011. ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99 TO 2000-01. SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEES IN THIS REGARD IS ALSO CONTRARY TO WHAT HAS BEEN OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED C IT(APPEALS) IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDERS WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EES EXPARTE. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEA RNED CIT(APPEALS) DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES FILED BEFORE HIM ARE V ERY CRYPTIC INASMUCH AS THEY ARE NOT WELL DISCUSSED AND WELL REASONED. MOREOVER, THE PRELIMINARY LEGAL ISSUE SPECIFICALLY RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THEIR APPEA LS CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENTS HAS ALSO NOT BEEN ADJU DICATED UPON BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) VIDE HIS IMPUGNED ORDERS. I, THEREFORE , DEEM IT FAIR AND PROPER AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED O RDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) AND REMIT THE ENTIRE MATTER TO HIM WITH A DIRECTION TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AFRESH BY PASSING A WELL REASONED AND WEL L DISCUSSED ORDER ON ALL THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THEIR APPEALS AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 250(6) AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEES AN OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF A COST OF RS.500/- PER APPEAL WHICH I IM POSE UPON THE ASSESSEES FOR THE NEGLIGENT AND CASUAL ATTITUDE DISPLAYED IN COMPLYIN G WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) DURING THE COURSE OF EARLIER A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF SEPT., 2011. SD/- (P.M. JAGTAP) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 30 TH SEPT., 2011. 5 ITA NOS.5328 TO 5330/MUM/2011 5323,5324&5332/MUM/2011. 5325 TO 5327/MUM/2004 & ITA NO. 5331/MUM/2011. ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1998-99 TO 2000-01. COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, SMC BENCH, MUMBAI. (TRUE COPY ) BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES , MUMBAI. WAKODE