Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘SMC’
Before: SHRI RAJPAL YADAV
आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ - अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD – BENCH ‘SMC’
BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 550/Ahd/2017 �नधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Rameshbhai Valjibhai Kothari ITO, Ward-4(2)(4) A-2, Prasam Apartment Vs Ahmedabad. Nr. Karmacharinagar Ghatlodia Ahmedabad 380 061. PAN : AFEPK 0738 A अपीलाथ�/ (Appellant) �� यथ�/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Mehul K. Patel, DR Revenue by : Shri B.L. Meena, Sr.DR
सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 02/05/2019 घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement : 07/05/2019 O R D E R Assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal against order of the ld.CIT(A)-4, Ahmedabad dated 1.12.2016 passed for the Asstt.Year 2012- 13.
Though the assessee has taken four grounds of appeal, but his grievance revolves around a single issue viz. the ld.CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal of the assessee ex parte without considering the issues on merit.
With the assistance of the ld.representatives, I have gone through the record carefully. It emerges out from the record that the ld.CIT(A) has granted nine opportunities to the assessee for prosecuting his appeal. Thereafter, the ld.CIT(A) has reproduced assessment order from
ITA No.550/Ahd/2017 - 2 -
para 4 in page no.4 upto page no.13. Decision of the ld.CIT(A) is in paragraph-5 reads as under; DECISION :
The grounds of appeal filed by the appellant and the assessment order have been considered carefully. The A.O. made the following additions to the returned income:
Sr. Particulars Amount No. 1. Undisclosed STCG from Hanspura(1 2,394) Rs.11,77,425/ -
Undisclosed STCG Hanspura(4,025) Rs.2,21,436/-
Unexplained Investment in Land at Muthiya(1 Rs.1,28,400/- 4,751)
Unexplained investment in Land at Muthiya(22,257) Rs.1,10,000/-
Unexplained cash credit by the way of Gift Rs.20,73,417/ -
Unexplained cash credit by the cash deposit in bank Rs.52,000/- account
The reasons for making these additions have been carefully gone through. The A.O. has mentioned the reasons for making these additions in detail. The appellant was given sufficient opportunity of being heard. In spite of all the opportunities given during the assessment proceedings and the appellate proceedings, the appellant could not submit any explanation against the additions made. In such situation, the additions made by the A.O., as mentioned above are confirmed. The appeal is dismissed. 4. Subsection (6) of section 250 of the Act contemplates that the ld.CIT(A) shall state the point of dispute and thereafter record reasons in support of his conclusion on those points. A perusal of the above order would indicate that the ld.CIT(A) failed to follow the above mandate
ITA No.550/Ahd/2017 - 3 -
and dismissed the appeal in summary manner. However, it is equally important to note that the assessee did not respond to the notices given by the ld.CIT(A) on nine occasions. It suggest careless attitude at the end of the assessee. If this careless attitude is being pitted with punishment in the shape of tax liability on the addition confirmed by the ld.CIT(A), then it would reveal that punishment is disproportionate to the negligence. The ld.CIT(A) should have called for assessment record and also perused the explanation given by the assessee before the AO instead of verbatim reproducing the assessment order in the impugned order. Considering negligence of the assessee and in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of the ld.CIT(A) subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- (Five Thousand) by the assessee. The ld.CIT(A) shall re- adjudicate all the issues and the assessee is directed to cooperate with the CIT(A) by submitting necessary details.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Pronounced in the Open Court on 7th May, 2019.
Sd/- (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER