PRAVASH NARAYAN MALLICK,CHHATIA vs. ITO, JAJPUR WARD, JAJPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 128/CTK/2022Status: HeardITAT Cuttack19 April 2023AY 2014-153 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer had treated the housing loan as turnover. In the interest of justice, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee, running a colour lab and having rental income, filed a return of income. The Assessing Officer treated a housing loan deposit of Rs. 1,14,42,560/- in the assessee's bank account as turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether a housing loan deposited in the assessee's bank account can be considered as turnover for the purpose of assessment.

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv
For Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR
Pronounced: 19/0

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK ‘SMC’ BENCH, CUTTACK , CUTTACK BEFORE BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2014-15 Pravash Narayan Pravash Narayan Mallick, At: Vs. ITO, Jajpur Ward, ITO, Jajpur Ward, GopapurChhak, GopapurChhak, Chhatia, Chhatia, JaJpur Barchana, Dist: Jajpur Barchana, Dist: Jajpur PAN/GIR No. PAN/GIR No.AJUPM 4029 J (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Sandeep Kumar Jena, Adv Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 19 /0 04/2023 Date of Pronouncement : 19/0 /04/2023 O R D E R

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A) , Cuttack, , Cuttack, dated 10.1.2020 in Appeal No.0565/2016 0565/2016-17 for the assessment year assessment year 2014-15.

2.

Shri Sandeep Shri Sandeep Kumar Jena, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Kumar Jena, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue. S.C.Mohanty, ld Sr DR appeared for the revenue.

3.

It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is an individual, who is It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is an individual, who is It was submitted by ld AR that the assessee is an individual, who is deriving income from running of a colour lab in the name and style of M/s. deriving income from running of a colour lab in the name and style of M/s. deriving income from running of a colour lab in the name and style of M/s. P.P.Digital & Colour Lab and also from rental income from house property, ital & Colour Lab and also from rental income from house property, ital & Colour Lab and also from rental income from house property,

P a g e 1 | 3 etc. The assessee had filed his return of income disclosing income of Rs.7,85,400/-. In the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer had taken the entire transaction from the bank account of the assessee and had determined the turnover of the assessee at Rs.1,83,29,300/-. It was the submission that an amount of Rs.1,14,42,560/- was a housing loan, which was deposited in the bank account of the assessee. It was the submission that this has been considered as turnover of the assessee. It was the submission that the assesse was unable to represent his case before the ld CIT(A) as the notice of hearing had not been received by the assessee. It was the prayer that the issues in the appeal may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer and the assessee would be able to substantiate his case before the Assessing Officer that the loan of Rs.1,14,42,560/- was not to be considered as the turnover of the assessee.

4.

In reply, ld Sr DR vehemently supported the order of the Assessing officer and ld CIT(A).

5.

I have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the facts of the present case shows that there are loan transactions in respect of housing loan taken from Odisha Gramya Bank. It is also noticed that the Assessing Officer has not considered the loan. It is also noticed that the Assessing Officer has treated the said loan as the turnover of the assessee. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in the appeal are restored to P a g e 2 | 3 the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard.

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 19/04/2023.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →