MS. FATEMA SHOEB SHUSSAIN , NAGPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD -2(4), NAGPUR

ITA 82/NAG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 103 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4235 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 4 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-09-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2024
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 05-04-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY Y. MARATHE
• Assessee Lawyers: RACHIT THAKAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.M. ROY, ACCOUNTANT, MEMBER ITA no.82/Nag./2018 (Assessment Year : 2010–11) Fatima Shoeb Hussain 15, Fatema Villa, Buty Layout Rajnagar, Katol Road, Nagpur 440 013 PAN – AAHPH0512K ................ Appellant v/s Income Tax Officer Ward–2(4), Nagpur ................ Respondent Assessee by : Shri Rachit Thakar Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe Date of Hearing – 13/08/2024 Date of Order – 02/09/2024 O R D E R PER BENCH The present appeal has been filed by the assessee challenging the impugned order dated 01/12/2015, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–II, Nagpur, [“learned CIT(A)”], for the assessment year 2010–11. 2. In its appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds:– “1. Learned C.I.T.(A) erred in passing order without giving proper opportunity to appellant and passed the order exparte. 2] Learned C.I.T.(A) erred in not passing the order on merits. 3] Learned A.O erred in initiating proceedings U/s.147 and issuing notice U/s. 148 is bad in law. Fatima Shoeb Hussain ITA no.82/Nag./2018 Page | 2 4] Learned A.Oferred in holding that the assessee was the owner of Maria Construction. Said Maria Construction was the proprietory concern of Shri Shabbir Hussain Taherali. 5] Learned A.O. erred in adding Rs.9,10,910/- as a unexplained business income of the assessee. 6] Learned A.O. erred in adding Rs.9,10,910/- during the year as estimated profit at 8% on assumed of total credit entries i.e. Rs. 1,13,86,373/-. 7] Learned A.O. erred in estimating income from M/s. M.B. Travels of Rs.9,58,539/-. 8] Learned A.O. erred in adding Rs. 14,71,601/- as unexplained cash credits U/s.68 of Proprietory concern M/s. M.B. Travels. 9] Learned A.O, erred in adding Rs.4,39,000/- U/s.68 as unexplained cash credits of Maria Construction. 10] Learned A.O. erred in adding amounting to Rs.63,76,145/- U/s.69 as unexplained investment in House Property. 11] Learned A.O. erred in not properly consider assessee's submission and various documents filed before him. 12] Learned A.O. erred in not giving opportunity to put up there case before D.V.O. 13] Assessee craves leave to urge additional grounds at the time of hearing as may be necessary. 3. During the course of hearing, the Registry has pointed out that ther is a delay of 796 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee. Being satisfied with the condonation petition filed by the assessee, we condone the delay and proceed for adjudication. On a perusal of the records available before us, we find that there is no representation on behalf of the assessee before the learned CIT(A), who has dismissed the appeal summarily without passing a speaking order. For the sake of natural justice and fair play, we deem it fit to set aside the impugned order and restore the matter to the file of the learned CIT(A) with direction to consider the orders passed by the Tribunal, ITAT, Nagpur Bench, in appeal being ITA no.64 to 69/Nag./2015, for the Fatima Shoeb Hussain ITA no.82/Nag./2018 Page | 3 assessment year 2004–05 to 2009–10, and adjudicate the issues denovo after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, since the issues for consideration are contemporaneous and similar. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 4. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/09/2024 Sd/- V. DURGA RAO JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- K.M. ROY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 02/09/2024 Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee; (2) The Revenue; (3) The PCIT / CIT (Judicial); (4) The DR, ITAT, Nagpur; and (5) Guard file. True Copy By Order Pradeep J. Chowdhury Sr. Private Secretary Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Nagpur Fatima Shoeb Hussain ITA no.82/Nag./2018 Page | 4 Date Initial 1. Dictated on 23.08.2024 Sr.PS 2. Draft placed before author 26.08.2024 Sr.PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member – – JM/AM 4. Draft discussed / approved by Second Member – – JM/AM 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS 30.08.2024 Sr.PS 6. Date of pronouncement 02.08.2024 Sr.PS 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 02.08.2024 Sr.PS 8. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk 9. Date of dispatch of Order