Subrata Kumar Senapati, Bhubaneswar V. DCIT, Circle-4(1), Bhubaneswar

ITA 90/CTK/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3585 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P K MISHRA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PA V AN KUMAR GADALE, JM . / ITA NO. 90 /CTK/201 8 ( [ [ / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 3 - 20 1 4 ) MR. SUBRATA KUMAR SENAP ATI, PLOT NO.1467/2390, SADGAMAYA NEW FOREST PARK, BHUBANESWAR, KHURDA - 751009 VS. DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), BHUBANESWAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A DAPS 1043 C ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) [ /AS SESSEE BY : SHRI P.K.MISHRA , AR /REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHENDU DUTTA , DR / DATE OF HEARING : 20 / 0 8 /201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 21 / 0 8 /201 8 / O R D E R PER SHRI PA V AN KUMAR GADALE, JM : TH IS IS AN APPE AL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 2 , BHUBANESWAR , DATED 01.11.2017 PASSED IN I.T.APPEAL NO. 0053 / 2016 - 17 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 201 3 - 201 4 . 2. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION STATING THEREIN THAT REQUIRED PAPERS AND INFORMATION IN THE MATTER COULD NOT BE COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE AS HE IS OUT OF STATION FOR MEDICAL TREATMENT OF HIS RELATIVE, WHICH IN OUR OPINION, IS NOT A PLAUSIBLE ONE, ACCORDINGLY WE REJECT THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION AND APPEAL IS HEARD FINALLY. 3 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. FOR THAT, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE FORUMS BELOW ARE NOT JUST AND PROPER UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE THEREIN IS LIA BLE TO BE DELETED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. ITA NO. 90 /CTK/201 8 2 2. FOR THAT, THE LEARNED C.I.T(A) SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED A.O. AND DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT, SINCE THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PAS SED ON GROSS VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE SAME BEING UNSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW, NEEDS TO BE QUASHED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 3. FOR THAT, THE LEARNED C.I.T(A) HAS COMMITTED GROSS ERROR OF LAW, WHILE CONFIRMING VARIOUS DISALL OWANCE OF TO THE TUNE OF RS.1,12,91,040.00, IGNORING THE EXPLANATION AND EVIDENCES ADDUCED BEFORE THE LEARNED A.O. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, AS SUCH, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 1,12,91,040.00, BEING NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW, NEEDS TO BE DELETED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 4. FOR THAT, SINCE THE APPELLANT HAS SUFFICIENT EVIDENCES IN HAND TO JUSTIFY THE IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS, SECTION 68 HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACT OF THE CASE, AS SUCH, THE ADDITI ON OF S UCH DISALLOWANCES OF RS. 1,12,91,040.00 BY THE FORUMS BELOW, BEING ILLEGAL, NEEDS TO BE DELETED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 5. FOR THAT, YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF THIS HON'BLE TRIBUNAL TO URGE ANY OTHER GROUNDS, IF ANY, AT THE TIME OF HEARING IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 4 . BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RETAIL & WHOLESALE TRADING OF FURNITURE & LIFESTYLE ITEMS AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 06 .09.2013 FOR THE A.Y. 201 3 - 201 4 DECL ARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 23,16,250/ - . THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. S UBSEQUENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED UNDER SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICES U/S.143(2) & 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SAME, LD. AR APPEARED BEFORE THE AO AND CASE WAS DISCUSSED. THEREAFTER T HE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.1, 12,91,040 / - AND PASSED ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT , DATED 30 .03 .2016 MAKING VARIOUS ADDITION S . 5 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, THE ASSESSEE PR EFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ITA NO. 90 /CTK/201 8 3 COMPLIED THE STATUTORY NOTICE, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7 . BEFORE US, AT THE TIME OF HEARING LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IS AN EX - PARTE ORDER AND , THEREFORE PRAYED FOR OPPORTUNITY TO REPRESENT THE CASE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 8 . CONTRA, LD.DR VEHEMENTLY OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PRAYED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED THE HEARING NOTICE AND AGAIN PRAYING FOR OPPORTUNITY WITHOUT EXPLAINING THE REASONABLE CAUSE. 9 . WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. W E FOUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE HEARING DATES POSTED ON 21.06.2017, 07.07.2017, 24.07.2017, 16.08.2017, 28.08.2017, 22.09.2017 & 10.10.2017 . PRIMA FACIE IT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE A VIGILANT ATTEMPT TO APPEAR BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. THEREFORE, WE CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACTS AND ALSO THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE IN NON - COMPLIANCE WITH THE DATE OF HEARING AND K EEPING IN VIEW THE ABOVE BACK GROUND OF THE CASE AND ALSO THE PRAYER OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE INTEREST OF RENDERING SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE, ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT NO LOSS WILL BE CAUSED TO THE REVENUE IF ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY IS ALLOWED TO THE ASS ESSEE TO PRESENT ITS APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BUT, KEEPING IN VIEW THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ITA NO. 90 /CTK/201 8 4 CIT(A), WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO DEPOSIT RS. 10 000/ - (RUPEES TEN THOUSAND ONLY) BY WAY OF COST TO THE DEPARTMENT WITHIN A PERIOD OF ONE MONTH FROM TH E DATE OF THIS ORDER AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL PRODUCE A COPY OF RECEIPT OF PAYMENT OF COST AS EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 10 . WITH THE ABOVE DIRECTION, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AF TER ALLOWING REASONABLE AND PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT THE CIT(A) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PASS ANY ORDER AS HE MAY DEEM FIT IN THE MATTER, IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO COOPERATE WITH HIM ON THE DATES OF HEARING FIXED BY HIM. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 / 08 / 201 8 . S D/ - ( N.S.SAINI ) S D/ - ( PAVAN KUMAR GADALE ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 21 / 08 /201 8 . . / PKM , SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - MR. SUBRATA KUMAR SENAPATI, PLOT NO.1467/ 2390, SADGAMAYA NEW FOREST PARK, BHUBANESWAR, KHURDA - 751009 2. / THE RESPONDENT - DCIT, CIRCLE - 4(1), BHUBANESWAR 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6 . [ / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//