SHRI TULSIBHAI DEVRAJBHAI PATEL,MORBI vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), MORBI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 357/RJT/2014Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 January 2019AY 2003-044 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the matter to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, subject to the assessee paying a cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the Income Tax Department. This was due to the assessee's negligent approach in pursuing the matter.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) without sufficient opportunity for hearing. The assessee's counsel failed to provide valid reasons for non-appearance before the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order and the validity of the initiation of action under Section 147. The issue of whether the matter should be restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication was also considered.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 250(6),Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr.DR
Pronounced: 31/01/2019

आदेश / O R D E R

PER MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)–IV, Rajkot [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)-IV/0105/08-09 dated 25/03/2014 arising in the assessment order passed under s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(hereinafter referred to as "the Act") dated 24.12.2008 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2003-04.

2.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

ITA No.357/Rjt/2014 Shri Tulsibhai Devrajbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2003-04 - 2 - 1. The grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-IV, Rajkot [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”) erred on facts as also in law in confirming initiation of action u/s.147 of the Act as valid. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of ₹ 9,22,500/- on account of alleged unrecorded sales and purchase. The addition may kindly be deleted. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of ₹76,57,293/- u/s.69C of the Act on account of alleged unexplained expenditure/payments. The addition may kindly be deleted. 5. The Ld.CIT(A) erred on facts a also in law in sustaining AO's action of the rejection of books of account and thereby making addition of ₹10,540/- made on account of low gross profit. The addition may kindly be deleted and the book results may kindly be accepted. 6. The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in retaining addition of ₹36,000/- on account of alleged low household withdrawals. The addition may kindly be deleted.

2.

At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee before us submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without giving sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the Ld.AR for the assessee prayed before us to restore the matter to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provisions of law.

3.

A specific question was raised from the Bench to the ld.counsel for the assessee to justify the reasons for non-appearance before the

ITA No.357/Rjt/2014 Shri Tulsibhai Devrajbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2003-04 - 3 - Ld.CIT(A), the Ld.AR failed to provide any plausible reasons for the non-appearance of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A).

4.

Indeed the provisions of section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 casts obligation upon the Ld.CIT(A) to pass a reasoned order after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. But the negligent/dilly-dally approach of the assessee in pursuing the matter before the Ld.CIT(A) cannot be neglected. Therefore, we are inclined to levy a cost of Rs.10,000/- upon the assessee for adopting the negligent approach in pursuing the matter before the Ld.CIT(A). Accordingly, we direct the assessee to deposit a sum of Rs.10,000/- to the Income Tax Department prior to the commencement of hearing before the Ld.CIT(A).

5.

The Ld.DR did nto raise any objection if the matter is restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the provisions of law.

6.

In view of the above, we are inclined to restore the issue to the file of Ld.CIT(A) subject to payment of Rs.10,000/- to the Income Tax Department as discussed above for afresh adjudication as per the provisions of law. Hence, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

ITA No.357/Rjt/2014 Shri Tulsibhai Devrajbhai Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year – 2003-04 - 4 - 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as narrated above. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 31/01/2019

Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR PRASAD) ACCOUNTANTMEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

Ahmedabad; Dated 31/01/2019 ट�.सी.नायर, व.�न.स./T.C. NAIR, Sr. PS 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)-IV, Rajkot 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण,राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Rajkot 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, राजोकट / ITAT, Rajkot 1. Date of dictation .. 31.1.2019 (dictation-pad 5-pages attached at the end of this appeal-file) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …31.1.2019 3. Other Member… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S…………….. 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement…… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S…….31.1.2019 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk…………………31.1.2019 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………………

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →