Rajinder Kumar Dua, Chandigarh V. DCIT, Chandigarh

ITA 647/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86115 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 647/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 SHRI RAJINDER KUMAR DUA, VS. THE DCIT H.NO. 152/2 CIRCLE 5(1) SEC-55, CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO.ABFPD8700L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI TEJ MOHAN SINGH RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 22/12/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12.01.2015 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DT. 30.04.2014. 2. IN THIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAI NST THE FACTS. 2. A) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS.2,41,976/- WHICH REPRESENTS CREDIT CARD EXPENDIT URE OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUNDS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILE D TO PROVIDE REQUISITE INFORMATION IN THIS REGARD. B) HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO INTERPRET THE IN FORMATION REQUIREMENT OF THE WORTHY A.O. AND WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE THE REQUISITE INFORMATION. C) ON BECOMING AWARE OF THE INFORMATION SO REQUIRED , THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENDITURE. 2 3. THAT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(B) AND SECTI ON 271(1)(C) INITIATED BY THE WORTHY A.O. MAY BE WAIVED OFF. 3. GROUND NO.2 : AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT ORIGINALLY ASSESSEE FILED RETURN FOR RS. 5,85,620/- WHICH WAS LATER ON REVISED TO RS. 5,83,668/-. LATER ON, IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS TRANSACTED A SUM OF RS. 2,4L,976/- THROUGH CREDIT CARD AND, THEREFORE, ASSE SSMENT WAS REOPENED AND NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED. HOWEVER, NOBODY APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE NOTICE, THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT WAS C OMPLETED BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 2,92,166/- ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT CARD TRANSAC TION AND DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSING LOAN BY COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT ON EX. PARTE BASIS U/S 144. 4. ON APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. 5. BOTH THE PARTIES WERE HEARD IN DETAIL. 6. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL THAT ASSESSEE WAS ABOARD DURING ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS THAT IS WHY PROPER REPRESENTATION COULD NOT BE MADE. HOWEVER, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN ASSESSEE IS A SALARIED EMPLOYEE THAN HOW ADDIT ION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CREDIT CARD TRANSACTION BECAUSE THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSTRUED AS EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, SINCE ASSESSEE H AS BEEN DENIED OF THE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFI CER WITH A DIRECTION TO RE- EXAMINE THE ISSUE AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.01.2015 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 12 TH JANUARY, 2015 RKK COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR 3