Jyotsnaben R. Doshi, Surendranagar V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Surendranagar

ITA 95/RJT/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0095 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARVIND N SONTAKKE
• Assessee Lawyers: DM RINDANI
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained investment; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 69; 145; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH , RAJKOT BEFORE: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND S H RI AMARJIT SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [CONDUCTED THROUGH E - COURT AT AHMEDABAD] JYOTSNA BEN R. DOSHI, MAHAVIR NAGAR, JINTAN ROAD, SURENDRA NAGAR, GUJARAT - 363002 PAN: ABHPD5162C (APPELLANT) VS THE ITO, WARD - 2, SURE NDRA NAGAR, GUJARAT - 363002 (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : S H RI ARVIND N. SONTAKKE , SR. D . R. ASSESSEE BY: S H RI D.M. RINDANI , A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 19 - 10 - 2 016 D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 - 11 - 2 016 / ORDER P ER : AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : - THI S ASSESSEE S APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 , AR ISES FROM ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - XXI, AHMEDABAD DATED 2 4 - 12 - 2014 IN APPEAL NO. CIT(A) - 7/552/11 - 12 , IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,67,500/ - , IN I T A NO . 95 / RJT /20 15 A SSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 I.T.A NO. 95 /RJT /20 15 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO JYOTSNA BEN R. DOSHI VS. ITO 2 PROCEEDIN GS UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961; IN SHORT THE ACT . 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE ITO WARD - 4, SURENDRANAGAR THAT SHRI VIRAL RAMESHCHANDRA DOSHI, THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED IN THE STATE MENT THAT CASH OF RS . 11,67,500/ - WAS DEPOSITED IN THE JOIN T BANK ACCOUNT NO. 3260101 0 00 11343 OF AXIS BANK BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT SHR. RAMESHCHANDRA MANILAL HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09. IN CO NSEQUENT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ON THE REASON THAT RS. 11 , 67 , 500/ CHARGEABLE TO TAX AS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT . IN RESPONSE TO TH E NOTICE U/S. 148, THE ASSESSEE H A S FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS . 1,31,370/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ONLY MONTH WISE SUMMARY OF PURCHASES AND SALES AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,31,097/ - AND RS. 4 , 50 , 130/ - RESPECTIVELY AND IN THE C A SH BOOK CLAIMED CASH RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PARTIES ON ACCOUNT OF SAL ES MADE TO THEM . TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF CASH AMOUNT CREDIT ED TO THE ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS PARTIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CALLED FOR NAME, COMPLETE ADDRESS OF PARTIES A ND ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE PURCHASE BILLS A ND SALE BILLS ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS U/S. 145 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO MAKE COMPLIANCE AS THE I.T.A NO. 95 /RJT /20 15 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO JYOTSNA BEN R. DOSHI VS. ITO 3 INFORMATION REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE NOT FURNISHED. THEREFORE, THE A SSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 11,67,500/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. 4. AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A). THE ASSESSEE FA ILED TO ATTEND THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A), THEREFORE, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. CO UNSEL STATED THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS COMMITTED ERROR IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT HE WAS COMMUNICATED ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. RELIED ON THE O RDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A). 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) WAS COMMUNICATED THAT ASSESSEE WAS EXPIRED DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . IN THIS CONNECTION, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER THAT IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE A LETTER HAS BEEN RECEIVED ENCLOSING DEATH CERTIFICATE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF THIS THE CASE IS DECIDED ON MERIT. WE FIND THAT A S PER THE DEATH CERTIFICATE , THE ASSESSEE WAS EXPIRED ON I.T.A NO. 95 /RJT /20 15 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO JYOTSNA BEN R. DOSHI VS. ITO 4 22/10/2014 AND THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS DECIDE D THE CASE ON 24/12/2014 IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT HE WAS TIMELY COMMUNICATED ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE. WE CONSIDERED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(A) HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE WHILE DECIDING THIS APPEAL BY NOT PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE LEGAL HEIRS OF THE ASSSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX(A) TO DECIDE THIS MATTER AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE AND ALSO TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE STATUS OF THE SIMILAR ADDITION WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS I N THE HAND OF THE SON OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PR ONOUNCED IN THE OPEN C OUR T ON 18 - 11 - 201 6 SD/ - SD/ - (RAJPAL YADAV ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) JUDICIAL MEM BER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 18 /11 /2016 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD I.T.A NO. 95 /RJT /20 15 A.Y. 2008 - 09 PAGE NO JYOTSNA BEN R. DOSHI VS. ITO 5 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, ASSISTANT R EGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT