SHRI RAJENDRA MANGLANI, Indore V. The DCIT 1(1), Indore

ITA 690/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0463 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 07-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R R MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: AKSHAT SINGHAI
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, J.M. AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, A.M. I.T.A.NOS. 690 TO 693/IND/2014 A.YS. : 2003-04 TO 2007-08 SHRI RAJENDRA MANGLANI, DY. CIT, 56, GULMARG COLONY, INDORE VS. 1(1), INDORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. ACVPM4432B APPELLANT BY : SHRI AKSHAT SINGHAI, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.R.MEENA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 6 . 0 6 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 6 . 0 6 .201 5 -: 2: - 2 O R D E R PER GARASIA, J.M. THESE APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A)-I, INDORE, DATED 11.07.2014. SINCE ALL THESE APPEALS R ELATE TO SAME GROUP OF THE ASSESSEE , THEREFORE, THEY ARE DI SPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSM ENT U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) WAS FRAMED IN THIS CA SE ON 27.09.2010, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 3,6 8,200/-, RS. 7,42,200/-, RS. 22,98,880/- AND RS. 23,99,000/- . THE INCOME WAS ENHANCED MAINLY ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDI T U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, AND PENALTY WAS IMPOSE D AT RS. 50,000/-, RS. 45,000/-, RS. 8000/- AND RS. 80,000/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 TO 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLET ED U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3). DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE EARNING OF THE I NCOME AND HE HAS OFFERED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2 LAKHS AS AN ADDI TIONAL INCOME IN WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED. -: 3: - 3 3. THE MATTER CARRIED TO LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESS EE DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES WAS UNABLE TO PRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, HE HAS REQUESTED TO RESTORE THIS BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). 5. LD. D.R. HAD NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS REST ORED. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D AN ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ON 20.6.2014 AND THE CASE W AS NOT REFIXED ON 10.7.2014. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED T HE MATTER EX-PARTE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE MUST BE GIVEN ONE OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT HIS CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A) . THE LD. SENIOR D.R. HAS NO OBJECTION, IF THE APPEAL IS DECI DED ON MERIT. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF FAIR PLAY AND JUSTICE , WE RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). THE ASSESSE E IS DIRECTED -: 4: - 4 TO BE PRESENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) WITHIN TWO MONTHS F ROM THE RECEIPT OF THIS ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD DECIDE THE MATTER ON MERIT AFTER HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JUNE, 2015. SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16 TH JUNE, 2015. CPU* 1624