Income Tax Officer-3(4), Kanpur V. Shri Shishir Mishra, Kanpur

ITA 549/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87792 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.549/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 SHRI SHISHIR MISHRA, J - 317, AWAS VIKAS - 1, KESHAV PURAM, KALYANPUR, KANPUR. PAN:AJUPM1431C VS INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), KANPUR. (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) C.O.NO. 29 /LKW/201 4 (IN ITA NO.549/LKW/2014) ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 3(4), KANPUR. VS SHRI SHISHIR MISHRA, J - 317, AWAS VIKAS - 1, KESHAV PURAM, KALYANPUR, KANPUR. PAN:AJUPM1431C (RESPONDENT) (OBJECTOR) SHRI P. K. DEY, D. R. REVENUE BY NONE ASSESSEE BY 11/02/2015 DATE OF HEARING 17 /03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THE APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - II, KANPUR DATED 31/03/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THIS CASE WAS LAST FIXED FOR HEARING ON 05/01/2015 AND ON THAT DATE , L EARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI SWARAN SINGH APPEARED AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED AND HEARING WAS FIXED ON 11/02/2015. ON THIS DATE AGAIN, AN 2 ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION WAS FURNISHED BUT NONE WAS PRESENT IN THE COURT TO PURSUE THIS APP LICATION. THE REASONS GIVEN FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT IS SAME IN THIS APPLICATION AS WELL AS IN APPLICATION 19/11/2014 AND 05/01/2015 THAT THE ASSESSEE WANTS TIME TO PREPARE PAPER BOOK TO BE PRESENTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE REASON S STATED IN THE ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ARE NOT SATISFACTORY AND THEREFORE, REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS REJECTED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS HEARD EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 2. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BY THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL AND BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION HAS BEEN DECIDED BY LEARNED C IT(A) BY WAY OF PASSING A CRYPTIC ORDER AND HENCE FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE DECISION PORTION OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FROM PAGE NO. 5 OF HIS ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE: - HAVING CONSIDERED THE W RITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE FACTS ON RECORD AND THE REMAND REPORT DATED 30 - 01 - 2014 AND 18 - 02 - 2014 OF THE A.O., I AM OF THE OPINION THAT SINCE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 DATED 15/09/2010 WAS ISSUED BY ITO 4(3), KANPUR, AND, THER EFORE THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENT OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, BY I.T.G. - WARD - 3(4) HAS BEEN COMPLIED WITH. THEREFORE, THE GROUND NO. 1, 5 AND 6 ARE REJECTED. THE CONTENTS OF REMAND REPORTS DATED 30 - 01 - 2014 AND 18 - 02 - 2014 ARE CONSIDERED. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY SMT. SAYATRI DEVI VYAS, SHRI VINAY TIWARI AND ON BEHALF OF LATE MADAN MOHAN VYAS HAVE BEEN ANALYSED BY THE AO BUT NOTHING ADVERSE HAS BEEN PROVED. THE ID ENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE EXPLAINED AND ESTABLISHED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT IN. THE SUBMISSIONS HAVE 3 NEITHER BEEN PROVED FALSE NOR WRONG BY THE AO. THEREFORE , THE CASH DEPOSITS IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AND ESTABLISHED. ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS.15,45,000/ - NEEDS TO BE DELETED. THE ADDITION, HENCE, STANDS DELETED. 3.1 FROM THE ABOVE PARAS FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE RAI SED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION HAS BEEN DECIDED BY CIT(A) AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN A SUMMARY MANNER WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASONING FOR HIS DECISION. ON MERIT ALSO, THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) IN A VERY CRYPTIC MANNER AND HENCE, WE FEEL THAT I N THE PRESENT CASE, THE ENTIRE ISSUE SHOULD GO BACK TO CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION BY WAY OF PASSING A REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE. THE CIT(A) SHOULD PASS NECESSARY ORD ER AS PER LAW AFTER AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES AND HIS ORDER SHOULD BE REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17 /0 3 /2015 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR