Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI WASEEM AHMED
आदेश / O R D E R
PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
The Assessee is in appeal before us against the order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-6, Ahmedabad [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 22/03/2016 passed for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12.
Monikaben Kamleshbhai Gajjar vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2011-12 - 2 - 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1.1 The order passed u/s.250 on 22/03/2016 for A.Y. 2011-12 by CIT(A)-6 Abad, upholding additions/disallowances of Rs.32,72,050 made by AO is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in not considering fully and properly the explanations furnished and the evidence available on record.
1.3. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that there was sufficient cause for failure to attend /furnish details before the appellate authority so that the impugned order should not have been passed ex-parte and in non-speaking manner. The appellant should therefore be allowed to produce additional evidence during the course of appellate proceedings and should be admitted.
2.1 The Ld.CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and or on facts in upholding following additions/disallowances:
(a) Unexplained cash credit Rs.10,41,700 (b) Interest exps. Rs. 41,342 (c) Unexplained capital Rs.12,70,498 (d) GP Addition Rs. 3,79,805 (e) Out of elec. Charges Rs. 5,38,705 2.2 That in the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming above said additions/disallowances.
3.1 The Id. CIT(A) has grievously erred in upholding multiple additions/disallowances when the books of accounts were rejected so that the income should Have been assessed in holistic Monikaben Kamleshbhai Gajjar vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2011-12 - 3 - manner by telescoping them instead of separate additions/disallowances.
4.1 Without prejudice to the above and in the alternative, the Ld. AO has made multiple additions/disallowances so that the same deserves to be deleted or reduced. It is therefore prayed that the disallowance/additions of Rs.32,72,050 made by the AO and confirmed by CIT(A)should be deleted.
At the outset, ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal ex-parte to the assessee. The Ld.counsel for the assessee submitted that in the interest of justice assessee should be given opportunity of hearing. An affidavit dated 06/07/2019 by the assessee is also filed.
The Ld.DR opposed the submissions of the ld.counsel for the assessee and supported the orders of the authorities below.
We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material 5. available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Considering the submissions made in the Affidavit and the facts of the case, we set aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore all the grounds back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide the case afresh after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Monikaben Kamleshbhai Gajjar vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2011-12 - 4 -
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Court on 27th August-2019 at Ahmedabad.