KIRAN B JAISWAL, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 22(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 7084/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3020 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH SMC, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 7084/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) KIRAN B. JAISWAL, PLOT NO.3, ROOM NO.175, GAJANAN COLONY, GOVANDI (W), MUMBAI 400 043 PAN:AIMPJ 5125F ... APPELL ANT VS. THE I.T.O. WARD 22(2)(1), NAVI MUMBAI .... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SANTOSH MANKOSKAR DATE OF HEARING : 21/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/06/2016 ORDER THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERT AINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN OR DER PASSED BY CIT(A)-33, MUMBAI DATED 24/09/2014, WHICH IN TURN A RISES OUT OF AN ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) DATED 01 /03/2013. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE. 2 ITA NO. 7084/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS SEEN THAT NONE AP PEARED ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE INSPITE OF ISSUANCE OF N OTICE OF HEARING, WHEREAS SHRI SANTOSH MANKOSKAR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE, FOLLOWING RULE-24 OF THE INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULE S, 1963, THE APPEAL IS BEING DISPOSED OF EX-PARTE, QUA THE ASSESSEE AFT ER HEARING LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON MERITS. 4. IN THIS CASE, THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELO W REVEAL THAT NO RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WAS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED THE ASSE SSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, WHEREBY A TOTAL INCOM E OF RS.98,62,446/- HAS BEEN DETERMINED. THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE W ERE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT, CHEQUE TRANSACTIONS IN BANK ACCOUNT, ETC., WHICH HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED. T HE CIT(A) HAS ALSO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PUT IN ANY APPEARANCE. IN PARTICULAR, THE CI T(A) REFERRED TO THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT,223 ITR 480(MP) AND H AS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-ATTENDANCE OF HEARIN G BEFORE HIM. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE ATTENTION OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS DRAWN TO SECTION 250(6) OF THE ACT , WHICH REQUIRES THE COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL BEFORE HIM IN WRITING AND BY STATING THE POINTS FOR DETERMINATION , THE DECISION THEREON AND THE REASONS FOR SUCH DECISION. IT WAS P OINTED OUT TO THE LD. 3 ITA NO. 7084/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE IMPUGNED ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) WAS CONSPICUOUS BY ABSENCE ON MERITS OF THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT, THE APPEAL HAS BEEN DIS MISSED MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN MY CONSID ERED OPINION, IN VIEW OF THE SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT OF SUB-SECTION (6) OF S ECTION 250C OF THE ACT, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE STATED THE RELEVANT POINTS FOR DETERMINATION BEFORE HIM, AS MANIFESTED IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND STATEMENT OF FACTS BEFORE HIM, AND THE DECISION THEREON ALONGWITH REAS ONS FOR SUCH DECISION. ON THIS POINT OF LAW, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET- ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED BY BACK TO HIS FI LE FOR ADJUDICATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASO NABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, AS ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29/06/2 016 SD/- (G.S. PANNU) ACCOU NTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 29/06/2016 VM , SR. PS COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT , 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, MUMBAI