Smt. Pratimaben V. Raja, Mumbai V. The Income Tax Officer, Intl. Taxn., Rajkot

ITA 57/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2372 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 23-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R I PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAVITA THAWANEY
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 56/AHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SHRI VINODKUMAR HIRALAL RAJA, B-001, C2 BHARTIYA KALA MANDAL, OM NAGAR, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI 400 099 .. APPELLANT PAN : AJUPR 7185 C VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, RAJKOT .. RESPONDENT ./ ITA NO. 57/AHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SMT. PRATIMABEN V. RAJA, B-001, C2 BHARTIYA KALA MANDAL, OM NAGAR, ANDHERI EAST, MUMBAI 400 099 .. APPELLANT PAN : AMJPR 3546 F VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, RAJKOT .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE(S) BY SMT.SAVITA THAWANEY, AR REVENUE BY SHRI R.I. PATEL, CIT - DR / DATE OF HEARING 23/03/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31/03/2016 / O R D E R PER SHAILENDRA K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES A RE DIRECTED AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF ITA NOS. 56 & 57/AHD/2016 VINOD KUMAR H. RAJA & PRATIMABEN V. RAJA VS. ITO AY : 2006-07 - 2 - INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-13, AHMEDABAD OF EVEN DATED 03.12.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. BOTH THESE APPEALS INVOLVE COMMON ISSUES, THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDE R FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.56/AHD/2016 : AY 2006-07 ASSESSEE : SHRI VINODKUMAR HIRALAL. RAJA 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-13, AHMEDABAD (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)) ERRED ON FACTS AND ALSO IN LAW IN DISMISSING APPEAL WITHOUT ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND IN TOTAL DISREGARDS TO THE ADJOURNMENT LETTER FILED ON 2 ND DECEMBER, 2015. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED ON FACT AS ALSO IN LAW IN CONFIRMATION ADDITION OF RS.9,28,77,320/- MADE U/S 69 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED A S TO THE ACT) ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT IN MUTUAL FUND, DEPOSITS ETC. THE ADDITION CONFIRM ED IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW AND MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 3. THE MAIN ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CI T(A) ERRED ON FACTS AS ALSO IN LAW IN DISMISSING THE APP EAL WITHOUT ALLOWING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN TOTAL DISREGARDS TO THE ADJOURNMENT LETTER FILED ON 02.12 .2015. IT WAS ALSO THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AD DITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69 OF THE ACT AMOUNTIN G TO RS.9,28,77,320/- AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE. ON ITA NOS. 56 & 57/AHD/2016 VINOD KUMAR H. RAJA & PRATIMABEN V. RAJA VS. ITO AY : 2006-07 - 3 - THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUP PORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMIS SION OF ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ALLOWED SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) WAS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT, BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED ON CERT AIN DATES AND FINALLY ON 02.12.2015 THE EX-PARTE ORDER WAS PA SSED BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING ASSESSEES ADJOURNMENT A PPLICATION DATED 02.12.2015. AT THE SAME TIME, WE CANNOT ENCOU RAGE THE APATHY TOWARDS PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. HOWEVER, AT THE SAME TIME, DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG IS ALSO ESSENTIAL FOR JUSTICE. SO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE SUBJECT TO PAYMENT OF COST OF R S. 10,000/- TO BE DEPOSITED IN LEGAL AID OF GUJARAT HIGH COURT. TH E MATTER IS RESTORED TO CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAM E AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE MATTER TO CIT (A) ON PRELIMINARY ISSUE, WE ARE REFRAINING TO COMMENT ON MERIT OF THE ISSUE AT HAND. 5. AS A RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.57/AHD/2016 : AY 2006-07 ASSESSEE : SMT. PRATIMABEN V. RAJA 6. SIMILAR ISSUE AS WE DEALT WITH IN THE CASE OF S HRI VINODKUMAR H. RAJA (SUPRA) AROSE IN THIS APPEAL ALS O. FACTS BEING SIMILAR, SO FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING AS D ISCUSSED ITA NOS. 56 & 57/AHD/2016 VINOD KUMAR H. RAJA & PRATIMABEN V. RAJA VS. ITO AY : 2006-07 - 4 - ABOVE IN THE CASE OF SHRI VINODKUMAR H. RAJA IN ITA NO.56/AHD/2016 (SUPRA), WE RESTORE THE MATTER TO TH E FILE OF CIT(A) WITH SIMILAR DIRECTIONS. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 31 ST MARCH, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD SD/- SD/- ANIL CHATURVEDI SHAILEND RA K. YADAV (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 31/03/2016 BIJU T., PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. !' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$!' / THE RESPONDENT. 3. %% & / CONCERNED CIT 4. & ( ) / THE CIT(A), 5. '() #** , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. )+, / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) ! , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD