SHIVAJI LAXMAN SAHANE,NASHIK vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, NASHIK, NASHIK

ORDER

PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM:

2. On the basis of the facts and in the circumstances of the case the CIT(A) is not justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte when an Shivaji Laxman Sahane [A] application for adjournment was furnished on 21.11.2022, more particularly when written submission along with all evidences was already furnished on 16/01/2017 along with all evidences relied upon by the appellant, which is not considered by the CIT(A).

3. On the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as as per law, the additions made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 97,78,000/- on account of unsecured loan obtained by the appellant from Mr. Rangnath Gadekar and of Rs.32,21,090/- on account of interest paid to Mr. Rangnath Gadekar, please be deleted.

4. The appellant craves for the addition to, deletion, alteration, modification of the above grounds of appeal

.” Submission of ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) :

2. Theld.AR of the assessee submitted that the ld.CIT(A) has not considered submission made by assessee. The ld.AR stated that assessee had made written submissions(page 1 to 8 of the paper book). However, the ld.CIT(A) has mentioned in the order that no submission was made. The ld.AR invited our attention to Ground No.1 and 2 of the assessee which is about ex-parte order passed by ld.CIT(A).

Submission of ld.Departmental Representative (Revenue) : 3. The ld.DR for the Revenue read out the assessment order. The ld.DR invited our attention to order passed by this ITAT in assessee’s own case in for A.Y. 2010-11 dated 01.08.2022. The ld.DR submitted that ITAT has categorically held that the loans were not genuine and therefore confirmed the 2 Shivaji Laxman Sahane [A] additions made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the amount claimed to be received from Ranganath Dattatreya Gadekar. The ld.DR further submitted that identical facts are involved in A.Y.2012-13. In A.Y.2012-13, the Assessing Officer(AO) has made an addition of Rs.97,78,000/- under section 68 of the impugned loan claimed to have been received from Ranganath Dattatreya Gadekar. Therefore, the ld.DR stated that this is a covered case and addition needs to be confirmed.

Findings and Analysis : 3. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On perusal of the ld.CIT(A)’s order, it is observed that ld.CIT(A) has not discussed the submissions made by assessee. In para 3.1 of the ld.CIT(A)’s order, it is mentioned that assessee has not submitted any evidence during appellate proceedings. However, before us, it was pleaded that assessee had made submissions before the ld.CIT(A). Page 1 to 8 of the paper book was the submission made by the assessee before ld.CIT(A) and it has stamp of Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)-II, Nashik dated 16.01.2017. Thus, it seems that assessee had made submission before the ld.CIT(A). We are aware of the fact that ITAT Pune in assessee’s own case for A.Y.2010-11 has confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the impugned loan claimed to be obtained 3 Shivaji Laxman Sahane [A] from Ranganath Dattatreya Gadekar. However, it is also a fact that ld.CIT(A) failed to consider submission made by the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we set-aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) to ld.CIT(A) for denovo adjudication. The ld.CIT(A) is directed to consider the submission made by the assessee and he shall provide the appropriate opportunity to the assessee. Accordingly, Ground No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose.