Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI BASKARAN BR & SHRI KULDIP SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BASKARAN BR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3043/M/2022 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Mrs. Geeta Ravindra Patil Income Tax Officer, (By Shri Ravindra Namdev Ward 2(1), Patil L/H), Thane – 401 105 Room No.01, Vs. Ground Floor, Patil Niwas Building, Bhayander (East), Thane - 401105 PAN: ASLPP2424L (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Shri Paras Jain, A.R. Revenue by : Shri A.N. Bhalekar, D.R. Date of Hearing : 25 . 01 . 2023 Date of Pronouncement : 28 . 02 . 2023
O R D E R Per : Kuldip Singh, Judicial Member: The appellant, Mrs. Geeta Ravindra Patil (By Shri Ravindra Namdev Patil L/H) (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 19.09.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2012-13 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “On facts, in the circumstance of the case and in law:
ITA No.3043/M/2022 2 Mrs. Geeta Ravindra Patil (By Shri Ravindra Namdev Patil L/H)
Wrong Jurisdiction under section 147 1. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC (Henceforth the "CIT (A)") and the Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Thane (Henceforth the "ITO") ((collectively referred to as the "Authorities Below" erred in assuming Jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Void Order 2. The assessment order framed by the ITO is void ab initio as the same has been framed without providing effective opportunity of being heard and explain the case to the appellant.
Aggregate Additions/ Disallowances of Rs.36,82,204 /- 3. The authorities below erred in assessing the total income of the appellant at Rs.38,81,818/- making addition / disallowance amounting in all to Rs.36,82,204/-.
Addition of Agreement Value of Rs.28,20,000/- for Flat/Shop 4. The authorities below erred in making an addition of Rs.28,20,000/- in respect of Flat and Shop purchased from Shree Vardhman Developers, breakup of which is as under:-
Date Property Amount (Rs.) Appellant's Share (l/6th) 21/03/2002 Flat 70,20,000 /- 11, 70,000 /- 27/03/2002 Shop 99,00,000 /- 1 6,50,000 /- Total 1,69,20,000/- 28,20,000/-
It is submitted that the appellant paid only the signing amount of Rs.2,00,000/ as advance during the relevant previous year and balance of the consideration Rs.26,20,000/- was payable and was in fact paid in the subsequent years.
Addition of Cash Deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- 5. The authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.2,00,000/- being the Cash deposited on 19/03/2012 with the Gopinath Patil Parsik Janata Sahakari Bank Limited from the opening balance of cash balance at the beginning of the year as well as the cash generated during the relevant year from the earning of her business of fast food to cover the advance of Rs.2,00,000/- given to Shree Vardhman Developers for Purchase of Property as per ground 4 supra.
Addition of Depreciation of Rs.20,186/- 6. The authorities below erred in disallowing depreciation amounting to Rs.10,193/- being Rs.5,092/- on Furniture & Fixture and Rs.5,101/- on Computer twice thereby disallowing Rs.20,386/- in aggregate.
Addition of block value of Depreciable Assets Rs.76,425/- 7. The authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.76,425/- being the block value of Computer of Rs.25,504/- and Furniture & Fixture of Rs.50,921/- holding the same to be undisclosed investments
ITA No.3043/M/2022 3 Mrs. Geeta Ravindra Patil (By Shri Ravindra Namdev Patil L/H)
disregarding the fact the block values was in respect of the fixed assets purchased in the past and the same was considered and accepted for depreciation allowance in previous years. Addition of Loans and Advances of Rs.4,15,000/- 8. The authorities below erred in making addition of Rs.4,15,000/- by erroneously holding the advance GIVEN as advance RECEIVED and thereby treating the same as Cash Credit, while ignoring the fact that the same was duly disclosed on the Asset side of Balance Sheet on record and which also includes the advances of Rs.2,00,000/- given to Shree Vardhman Developers for purchase of Property as per ground 3, 4 and 5 supra Rejection of deductions under chapter VIA Rs.1,50,393/- 9. The authorities below erred in making disallowance of Rs.1,50,393/- i.e. Rs.1,45,498/- in respect of payments covered under Section 80C of the Act and Rs.4,895/-being the Mediclaim amount covered under Section 80D of the Act. 10. The appellant prays that the aforesaid grounds of appeal are without prejudice to and independent of one another. 11. The appellant prays that all the aforesaid grounds may in your absolute discretion be admitted as additional grounds of appeal in as much as the appellant is an illiterate person living in rural area and nor accessible to help from qualified personnel as a result of which none of these grounds were raised before the Hon. CIT (A). Instead some other grounds were raised which were not relevant to the present case. 12. The Appellant craves the leave to add, alter, modify or delete any one or more or all of the above grounds of appeal.” 2. Briefly stated facts necessary for consideration and adjudication of the issues at hand are: assessee being an individual filed her return of income declaring total income at Rs.1,99,614/- which was subjected to scrutiny by way of issuance of notices under section 143(2) and 142(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') along with questionnaires and in response thereto assessee's representative/Chartered Accountant put in appearance on 29.01.2015 and furnished the details viz. copy of return of income, computation of income, income and expenditure, balance sheet, copy of agreement of purchase of flat and shop and bank
ITA No.3043/M/2022 4 Mrs. Geeta Ravindra Patil (By Shri Ravindra Namdev Patil L/H)
statement. The Assessing Officer (AO) noticed that during the year under consideration the assessee has derived income from fast food labour work and shown net profit of Rs.3,60,200/- in its income & expenditure account as against total sales of Rs.12,59,715/- which works out to 28.59%. The AO also noticed cash deposit of Rs.2,00,000/- in assessee's saving account. Declining the contentions raised by the assessee the AO computed the income of the assessee by framing the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act as under: COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME Total Income as per return of Income Rs. 1,99,614/- Add: i) as discussed in Para 6.1 Rs.28,20,000/- ii) as discussed in Para 7 Rs. 2,00,000/- iii) as discussed in Para 8 Rs. 76,425/- iv) as discussed In Para 8.1 Rs. 20,386/- v) as discussed in Para 9 Rs. 4,15,000/- vi) as discussed in Para 10 Rs. 1,50,393/- Income assessed Rs.38,81,818/- Rounded off u/s 288A Rs.38,81.820/-
The assessee carried the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) by way of filing appeal who has confirmed the addition by dismissing the appeal. Feeling aggrieved with the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has come up before the Tribunal by way of filing present appeal.
We have heard the Ld. Authorised Representatives of the parties to the appeal, perused the orders passed by the Ld. Lower Revenue Authorities and documents available on record in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case and law applicable thereto.
ITA No.3043/M/2022 5 Mrs. Geeta Ravindra Patil (By Shri Ravindra Namdev Patil L/H)
At the very outside the Ld. A.Rs for the parties to the appeal brought to the notice of the Bench that the impugned order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) not on merits rather recorded the findings in the last para of the impugned order that "grounds of appeal do not pertain to any of the additions made in the assessment order hence they cannot be entertained or adjudicated upon and are liable to be dismissed”.
Perusal of the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) goes to prove that at the stage of first appellate proceedings the case of the assessee has been mishandled by both Ld. A.R. for the assessee as well as Ld. CIT(A). Even otherwise the impugned order has not been passed on the basis of specific addition made by the AO. So in these circumstances we are of the considered view that this is a case of not providing the adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. To decide the issues raised, once for all and to curtail the multiplicity of proceedings and to impart justice, one more opportunity is to be granted to the assessee who may raise the specific grounds before Ld. CIT(A) and he will decide the appeal afresh after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 28.02.2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (BASKARAN BR) (KULDIP SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai, Dated: 28.02.2023. * Kishore, Sr. P.S.
ITA No.3043/M/2022 6 Mrs. Geeta Ravindra Patil (By Shri Ravindra Namdev Patil L/H)
Copy to: The Appellant The Respondent The CIT, Concerned, Mumbai The CIT (A) Concerned, Mumbai The DR Concerned Bench
//True Copy//
By Order
Dy/Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, Mumbai.