TAHIR KHAN,JHANSI vs. ITO, JHANSI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 360/AGR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 September 2019AY 2014-154 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's delay and latches but, considering the object of tax collection, decided to remand the matter back to the CIT(A). This was subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s ex-parte order. The assessee admitted to not being punctual in appearing before the lower authorities. The CIT(A) had enhanced an addition and made other additions based on government valuation.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in disposing of the appeal ex-parte and enhancing the addition without proper consideration of evidence. The propriety of using government valuation over actual purchase price for property addition was also questioned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 56(2)(vii),Section 234B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Before: Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Hearing: 03.09.2019Pronounced: 11.09.2019

In the Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal, Agra Bench, Agra

Before : Shri Laliet Kumar, Judicial Member And Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, Accountant Member

ITA No. 360/Agr./2018 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Shri Tahir Khan, 38/2, MT vs. Income-tax Officer, Textiles, Jawahar Chowk, Jhansi. 2(3)(3), Jhansi. PAN: AJXPK8333L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Advocate Respondent by Sh. Waseem Arshad, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing 03.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement 11.09.2019

ORDER Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee feeling aggrieved from the order of ld. CIT(A)- dated 30.11.2017 on the following grounds : 1. BECAUSE, upon due consideration of facts and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in disposing off the appeal ex-parte even without consideration of objections raised at the stage of assessment before the AO which forms part of records. 2. BECAUSE, the Ld CIT(A) was highly unjustified in enhancing the addition by Rs.26,00,000/- made under section 68 of the Act without consideration of the material brought on records of the AO, facts of the case and law. 3. BECAUSE the authorities below were unjustified in making and confirming the impugned addition of Rs.97,31,000/- as deemed income of the appellant (taking the value u/s 56(2)(vii) at Govt. price (For stamp

ITA No. 360/Agr/2018 2

purposes) of Rs.1,12,31,000/-and reducing the actual purchase consideration of Rs.15,00,000/- which action is grossly arbitrary, highly unjust, illegal without any evidence brought on records to justify such huge addition and is against the peculiar facts of the case. 3.1 BECAUSE, while making the addition the authorities below have omitted to take into consideration that the Government value fixed for stamp purposes is highly abnormal & excessive being worked out on rental method considering the real actual value of the property. 3.2 BECAUSE while making the addition the authorities below have not taken into consideration that the property being located in basement having no proper thorough road, its situation, location, etc. and otherwise the actual value of the property is not more than the purchase price thus the addition made is wrong and illegal. 3.3. BECAUSE in any view, the Ld CIT(A) while sustaining the addition ought to have considered the valuation report dated 05.08.2016 of Regd. Valuer, Er. R.K. Agarwal and Associates evaluating actual valuation cost at Rs. 14.96 lacs, thus the addition made without proving the Report of Technical expert is bad in law. 3.4 BECAUSE in any view, the effect of the inspector visiting the premises has also not been considered, and his report of any inconvenience of the valuation report. 3.5 BECAUSE in any view, the action of the authorities below in adopting Government fixed value for stamp purposes instead of actual purchase price and the impugned high pitch addition made without any basis is grossly unjust as the appellant is ready to forgone/leave/transfer the property to Income Tax Department/otherwise even at 25% of the Government fixed value for stamp purposes. 3.6 BECAUSE in any view, the impugned addition made by disallowance of expenses of Rs.39,779/- on account of share trading expenses twice is grossly arbitrary, highly unjust, wrong and illegal and against the peculiar facts and law of the case. 3.7 BECAUSE in any view, the impugned addition made by adhoc disallowance of Rs.50,000/- out of Salary Rs.3,70,000/-, shop expenses

ITA No. 360/Agr/2018 3

Rs.44,173/-, Travelling Expenses Rs.48,657/-, Mobile expenses Rs.5,845/-, Generator Expenses Rs.6,790/- and Accounting charges Rs.18,000/- that too in casual and routine manner without pin pointing any specific item is grossly arbitrary, highly unjust, wrong and illegal. 3.8 BECAUSE, while making the assessment the authorities below made various observations/conclusions which are contrary to facts available on records. While making the addition submission made and evidences filed have been rejected arbitrarily. 4. BECAUSE, the 'appellant' denies levy of interest under section 234B. 5. BECAUSE, in relation to the ''grounds of appeal" as have been taken hereinbefore, the 'appellant' refer and rely upon the averments made in the statement of fact accompanying the memo of appeal. 6. BECAUSE, the order appealed against is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice.

2.

At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee is an agriculturist and was

not regular and punctual in appearing before the lower authorities, i.e., Assessing

Officer and CIT(A) and as such, the assessment by the Assessing Officer and the

appeal by the ld. CIT(A) were decided exparte. He has taken us to paragraph No. 5.3 of

the CIT(A) order and submitted that one more opportunity be granted to the assessee

and the assessee may be burdened with some reasonable cost.

3.

Per contra, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee was not vigilantly

pursuing the assessment proceedings and the appeal proceedings and hence, the

CIT(A) has decided the matter on merits on the basis of material available on record.

ITA No. 360/Agr/2018 4

4.

We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. In

paragraph No. 5.3, the delay and latches on the part of the assessee are conspicuous

and we reprimand the same. However, considering the object of the tax adjudication,

i.e., the tax is required to be collected from the person who is liable to pay it, and

keeping that loud principle in mind, we deem it appropriate to remand the matter

back to the file of CIT(A) subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- as cost as agreed by the ld.

AR with the office of ITAT Tax Bar Association, Agra. It is made clear that similar

amount of Rs.10,000/- shall be contributed by the ITAT Tax Bar Association from its

corpus and would be spent on the maintenance of the conference hall/waiting hall of

the lawyers/CAs. Hence, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 11th September, 2019

Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. Mitha Lal Meena) (Laliet Kumar) Accountant Member Judicial member

Dated: 11th Sept., 2019 *aks* Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Agra Bench, Agra

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →