Meghana Satish Shetty, Bngalore V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Shimoga, Shimoga

ITA 894/BANG/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1136 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-09-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R E BALASUBRAMANIAM
• Keywords: Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 12; 144; 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND S HRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBE ITA NO S . 893 & 894/BANG/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2011 - 12 & 2013 - 14 MEGHANA SATISH SHETTY, NO.73, NANDA COMFORTS, 15 TH CROSS, PADMANABHA NAGAR, BANGALORE. KARNATAKA. P AN: CEDPS 3502 N VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, SHIMOGA. APP ELLANT RESPONDENT APP ELLANT BY : SHRI R.E. BALASUBRAM AN IAM, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUNIL KUMAR AGARWAL, ADDL.CI T(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU DATE O F HEARING : 11 .09.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13 .09.2019 O R D E R PER N V VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 18.02.2019 OF THE CIT(APPEALS), DAVANGERE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 & 2013-14. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. FOR THE AY 2011 -12, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS .3,22,393. THE MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS INCOME FROM SA LARY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 1 44 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT] (BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT) DE TERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,33,89,760 AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:- ITA NO. 893 & 894/BANG/2019 PAGE 2 OF 4 ADDITIONS 1 BALANCE IN CANARA BANK AS ON 1.4.2010 20,15,015 2 CASH BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2010 30,25,690 3 GIFT FROM MOTHER 5,00,000 4 GIFT FROM RELATIVES 41,00,000 5 CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK 35,00,000 ------------ TOTAL 1,31,40,705 3. SIMILARLY, FOR THE AY 2013-14, THE ASSESSEE FILE D A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,91,590. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING ADDIT IONS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE:- ADDITIONS 1 GIT FROM UNCLE 1,10,00,000 2 GIFT IN CASH 3,00,000 3 GIFT IN KIND 9,00,000 4 INTEREST INCOME 9,00,000 ------------ TOTAL 1,31,00,000 4. AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEA LS). AS FAR AS AY 2011-12 IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT AND SINCE THE ASSESSE E DID NOT HAVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, HE MUST BE AFFORDED AN OPPORTUNITY BY THE AO. THE CIT(APPEALS) ALLOWED SUCH OPPORTUNITY AND SOUGH T A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THE CIT(A) AFTER EXTRACTING THE ENTIR E REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, FINALLY GAVE THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSIONS IN THE I MPUGNED ORDER:- 6C. I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER AND DETAILED REMAN D REPORT OF THE AO AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING ITA NO. 893 & 894/BANG/2019 PAGE 3 OF 4 ALL THE ABOVE FATS, I HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE. THUS, ALL THE GROUNDS FAIL. 5. SIMILARLY, FOR THE 2013-14, THE CIT(APPEALS) AFT ER EXTRACTING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS TO THE EFFEC T THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE GIFTS RECEIVED FROM RELATIVES RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, GAVE HIS CONCLUSIONS AS FOLLOWING:- 6A. DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL, THE ARS HAVE RAI SED VARIOUS ARGUMENTS AND THE SAME WAS CONSIDERED. THE ARS WER E UNABLE TO SHOW HOW THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS NOT IN TUNE WI TH THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. UNDER THESE CIRC UMSTANCES THERE IS NO SCOPE TO INTERVENE WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS FAIL. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDERS, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IT IS THE P LEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT APPLIED HIS MIND TO T HE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO IN AY 2011-12 AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONS MADE IN AY 2013-14. SINCE THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(APPEALS) IS A NON-SPEAKING ORDER GIVING NO REASONS, IT WAS PRAYED THAT THE SAME MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE DIRECTED TO DECI DE THE APPEAL AFRESH AND PASS A REASONED ORDER. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SU BMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD SET ASIDE IN BOTH THE ASSESSMEN T YEARS AS IT IS A NON- SPEAKING ORDER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A PPEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THE CIT(APPEALS) IS DIRECTED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORD ER ON THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO IN AY 2011-12 AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE S UBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN AY 2013-14. HE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO AFF ORD OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 893 & 894/BANG/2019 PAGE 4 OF 4 8. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) ( N.V. VASU DEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE, DATED, THE 13 TH SEPTEMBER, 2019. / D ESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, I TAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FIL E BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, BANGALORE.