Bhanja Prasad Mohanty, Bhubaneswar V. ITO, Bhubaneswar

ITA 65/CTK/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 6522114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 01-02-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S C MOHANTYDR
• Assessee Lawyers: R B PRUSTY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE : SHRI K.K.GUPTA, AM , AND SHRI K.S.S.PRASAD RAO, JM ITA NO. 065/CTK/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06) BHANJA PRASAD MOHANTY, PLOT NO.307/A, SAHEED NAGAR,BHUBANESWAR PAN: ADOPM 8690 B VE RSUS INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI R.B.PRUSTY, AR FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI S.C.MOHANTY,DR DATE OF HEARING : 10.08.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.08.2011 ORDER SHRI K.K .GUPTA, AM : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ORDER DT.22.11.2010 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 CONFIRMING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS, ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED EVIDENCE IN S UPPORT OF THE SAME. 1. 40,000 AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT 2. 1,00,000 AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENSES 3. 4,00,000 AGAINST SHOWING FIGURE OF 2,14,610 ON AD HOC BASIS. 4. 14,000 DISALLOWNG THEBENEFIT U/S.88. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAIL ABLE ON RECORD. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.144 OF THE I.T.ACT AND MADE THE ABOVE ADDITIONS. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), IT IS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE FILED A PETITION U/R.46A OF T HE I.T.RULES ON 22.11.2010 (COPY FURNISHED) ALONGWITH EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. BUT THERE IS NO WHISPER OF ANYTHING ABOUT THE SAID PETITION IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT COVERING THE DETAILS OF FACTS, EVIDENCE, BACKGROUNDS, REASONS ETC., BUT UPHELD THE ADDITIONS SIMPLY STATING THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED. THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO EXPLAIN ITS CLAIM DULY SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE W HICH CAN BE PRODUCED ON GIVING ONE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. THEREFORE, HE SOUGHT FOR RESTORATION OF THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION OF THE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF EVIDENCE TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE HI M. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ITA NO. 065/CTK/2011 2 2. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE FACTS AND GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE . THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.144 OF THE ACT AND THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE PETITION OF THE ASSESSEE FILED U/R.46A OF THE I.T.RULES ALONG WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, FOR THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WE SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE CLAIMS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF SUBMI SSIONS AND SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COOPERATE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT AFRESH. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. S D/ - S D/ - (K.S.S.PRASAD RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER (K.K.GUPTA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 10.08.2011 H.K.PADHEE, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT: BHANJA PRASAD MOHANTY, PLOT NO.307/A, SAHEED NAGAR,BHUBANESWAR 2. THE RESPONDENT: INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), BHUBANESWAR. 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE DR, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE (IN DUPLICATE) TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY.