Rajendrasingh Yadav, Pune V. Income-tax Officer, Central -1, Pune

ITSSA 84/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4397 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 16-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 132; 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 142(2A)

Judgement Text

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “बी” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A No.84/PUN/2017 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2004-05 Shri Rajendrasingh Yadav, Ion 7, 6 th Floor, Office No. 601 to 603, Behind Central Mall, PImpri, Opp. Shraddha Heritage, Morwadi, Pimpri, Pune – 411018 PAN : AABPY0300N .......अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Central – 1, Pune ......प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee by : N O N E Revenue by : Shri Piyush Kumar Singh Yadav सुिवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 11-03-2022 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 10-05-2022 आदेश / ORDER PER S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 28-08-2017 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Pune [‘CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2004-05. 2 IT(SS)A No.84/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2004-05 2. We find no representation on behalf of the assessee nor any application filed seeking adjournment. Thus, the assessee called absent and set ex-parte. Therefore, we proceed to dispose of the appeal by hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record. 3. Ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in holding the order of AO passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is valid in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. Heard ld. DR and perused the material available on record. We note that the assessee is an individual derives income from consultancy service in the education sector. A search was conducted on 20-07-2005 in the case of Yadav Group u/s. 132 of the Act. The assessee is a member of the said group. The assessee provides consultancy service under the name and style of “Siddhant Consultancy Services” in respect of professional education, besides also arranges admissions in different colleges, for which charges commission from prospective students. In response to the notice u/s. 153A of the Act, the assessee filed return of income declaring a total income of Rs.42,50,820/-. We note that the AO received special audit report in response to order of CIT(Central) u/s. 142(2A) of the Act. Before the CIT(A) a contention was raised, there was no opportunity for the assessee of being heard by the AO regarding invocation of special audit u/s. 142(2A) of the act and it was vehemently contended that the order passed by the AO is barred by limitation which was passed beyond the date stipulated as per Act. The CIT(A) discussed the said issue from Page Nos. 16 to 27 and held the assessment order passed by the AO is valid by rejecting the contention of assessee that it was barred by limitation. We 3 IT(SS)A No.84/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2004-05 note that there were no response from the assessee regarding the notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act which was issued on 20-08-2007 fixing the date of hearing on 04-09-2007. The AO forwarded a proposal for special audit to the CIT on 26-09-2007. The CIT issued show cause notice on 02-11-2007 and conducted hearing on 13-11-2007. There is no dispute by the assessee that he was not called for hearing in respect of AO’s proposal to get the accounts of the special audit of assessee. Having heard on 13-11- 2007, the CIT ordered special audit u/s. 142(2A) of the Act on 22-11-2007. It is established from the record that there was a reasonable opportunity was provided by the AO and also CIT(A) in the impugned proceedings to the assessee in respect of proposal u/s. 142(2A) of the Act. We find that the assessee participated before the AO in respect of proposal for special audit and the order of CIT(A) for the same and raising a ground challenging the order passed by the AO without giving an opportunity which was confirmed by the CIT(A) is invalid, in our opinion, is contrary to the evidence on record. Therefore, ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the assessee challenging the validity of assessment passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act are dismissed. 5. In respect of ground Nos. 5 to 23 raised by the assessee, it was submitted by the ld. DR that the assessee filed additional evidences and referred to Page No. 29. We note that the said additional evidences filed for the first time before the Tribunal and we find there was no opportunity for the lower authorities to examine the same. Therefore, we deem it proper to remand the issues raised in ground No. 5 to 23 to the file of AO for its fresh adjudication and the assessee is liberty to file evidences, if any, in support of its claim. Thus, ground Nos. 5 to 23 are allowed for statistical purpose. 4 IT(SS)A No.84/PUN/2017, A.Y. 2004-05 6. In the result, the appeal of assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 10 th May, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Inturi Rama Rao) (S.S. Viswanethra Ravi) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ददिाांक / Dated : 10 th May, 2022. रधव आदेश की प्रधतधलधप अग्रेधर्त / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलार्थी / The Appellant. 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-13, Pune 4. The Pr. CIT(Central), Pune 5. धवभागीय प्रधतधिधि, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, “बी” बेंच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गार्ा फ़ाइल / Guard File. //सत्याधपत प्रधत// True Copy// आदेशािुसार / BY ORDER, वररष्ठ धिजी सधचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune