Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA&
PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:
The instant appeal at the behest of the assessee is directed against the order dated 16.08.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), Hazaribag, Jharkhand arising out of the order dated 04.12.2017 passed under section 144/147 of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) passed by the ITO Ward- 2(2), Hazaribagh for A.Y. 2012-13 whereby and whereunder the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 69 of the Act has been challenged before us.
The case of the assessee was reopened under section 148 by and under the notice dated 24/30.03.2017. A notice under section 142(1) along with a questionnaire dated 20.09.2017 was issued to the assessee in reply whereof details were furnished by the assessee. Therefore, upon scrutiny of the
ITA No.351/Ran/2018 Sanjay Kumar vs.ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 2 - computation of total income submitted by the assessee it was found that the assessee has declared income from 10 numbers of trucks plying under section 44AE and interest income on FD, NSC etc. Further that during the year under consideration the assessee also purchased two trucks; one on 25.10.2011 and the other on 07.02.2012. The purchase bills was duly submitted by the assessee in respect of the first one including the insurance certificate of New India Assurance Co. Ltd., the statement on account of Mahindra Finance wherefrom the total value appears to be Rs. 23,75,000/-; the Finance Amount was Rs. 20,25,000/-. In respect of the other truck, the loan statement of SBI was furnished showing loan amount of Rs. 19,17,999/-. Thus the cost of investment of the two trucks comes to Rs. 51,40,649/- out of which Rs. 39,42,999/- has been financed and in the absence of proper explanation extended by the assessee with supporting documents, the Ld. AO came to a finding the balance amount of Rs. 11,97,650/- has been invested by the assessee himself. He further observed that the assessee derived income much more than Rs. 5,000/- per month for heavy vehicle during the year on the basis of the financial position of the assessee and also the investment of Rs. 11,97,650/- as made by the assessee for the purchase of two trucks and ultimately added Rs. 10,00,000/- under section 69C of the Act.
In appeal the Ld. CIT(A) admittedly has not decided the matter on merit and only on the basis of the alleged reply of the Ld. CA appearing on behalf of the appellant that there is no calculation mistake of the tax demand so calculated by the AO, the said addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- was confirmed. Hence, the instant appeal before us.
At the time of the hearing of the appeal the Ld. AR submitted before us that the Ld. CIT(A) failed to decide the issue on merit upon taking into
ITA No.351/Ran/2018 Sanjay Kumar vs.ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 3 - consideration the entire aspect of the matter more particularly the documents lying with the Revenue which is apparent on the fact of the order itself. Hence, the issue be remitted to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the same.
The Ld. DR, However, with all his fairness has not objected to such contentions made by the Ld. AR.
Having heard the Ld. Counsel appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we of the view that since the Ld. CIT(A) admittedly has not decided the issue on merit which is duty incumbent upon him instead of dismiss by the appeal on flimsy technical grounds the matter be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the same afresh. Hence, we remit the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh after giving an opportunity of being heard to the assessee and upon taking into consideration the evidence on record and also any other evidence which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the appeal. Assessee’s appeal is thus allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 02/12/2019
Sd/- Sd/- (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (Ms. MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 02/12/2019 TANMAY, Sr. PS TRUE COPY
ITA No.351/Ran/2018 Sanjay Kumar vs.ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 - 4 -
आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
(Sr. Private Secretary) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण / ITAT, Ranchi
Date of dictation 20.11.2019 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 21.11.2019 3. Other Member………………… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 27.11.2019 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement .11.2019 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S .11.2019 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 02.12.2019 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk…………………………………... 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order……………………………………