What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(Appeals) had not appreciated the facts correctly, noting contradictory statements regarding the assessee's business and the submission of written arguments. Therefore, the matter was restored to the CIT(Appeals) for proper adjudication.

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT arose from an order by the CIT(Appeals). The assessee argued that the CIT(Appeals) misstated facts, made contradictory statements about the assessee's business, and wrongly claimed no written submissions were filed.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(Appeals) correctly appreciated the facts of the case and whether the order contained contradictory statements and misrepresentations.

Dattatraya Pandurang Jawalkar vs ITO | ITAT Pune 2019

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, PUNE

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM & SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

For Appellant: Shri B.C. Malakar

For Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

Hearing: 04.04.2019Pronounced: 04.04.2019

आदेश / ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM :

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-7, Pune dated 04.12.2017 for the assessment year 2014-15 as per grounds of appeal on record.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR of the assessee vehemently argued that the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has mis-stated the facts in respect of the assessee’s case. That further, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) in his order has made contrary

2 ITA No. 275/PUN/2018 A.Y.2014-15

statements and observations. The Ld. AR invited our attention at Para 3 of

the Ld. CIT(Appeals)’s order wherein he has stated that the assessee is a co-

operative non scheduled bank. However, at Para 5.3, the Ld. CIT(Appeals)

states that the assessee is engaged in the business of retail sales of seeds and

pesticides. The assessee is in fact a retail dealer of seeds and pesticides but in

the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), he has brought in conflicting facts as

regards the source of income of the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted

that at Para 5.2 of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)’s order, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has

stated that the assessee did not file any written submissions which is

contrary to Para 5.4 of the same order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) wherein he has

stated the assessee has submitted that “zone is agricultural and non

development………………”. The assessee further submitted that “gain arising

is not from business and relied on the decision of Kerala High Court ……………”

2.1 The Ld. AR of the assessee contended that if nothing has been

submitted by way of written submissions then on what basis the Ld.

CIT(Appeals) arrived at the findings as stated at Para 5.4 of his order. The Ld.

AR even appraised the Bench at Pages 44 to 52 of the paper book wherein the

copy of submissions before the Ld.CIT(Appeals) has been placed and stated

that the submissions has seal and stamp of the Department which shows

that those were received in the office of the Ld.CIT(Appeals). That after

demonstrating factual mis-representation in the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)

and contrary findings in the said order, the Ld. AR of the assessee prayed

that the matter may be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for

proper adjudication and correct appreciation of the facts.

3 ITA No. 275/PUN/2018 A.Y.2014-15

On the other hand, the Ld. DR without going into the merits conceded

to the request of the Ld. AR for restoring the matter back to the file of the Ld.

CIT(Appeals).

We have perused the case records and heard the rival contentions. As

demonstrated by the Ld.AR, it is absolutely crystal clear that the Ld.

CIT(Appeals) has not appreciated the facts correctly in this case. It is evident

that written submissions were filed by the assessee. However, in the body of

the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)’s, he has stated that the assessee has not

submitted any written submissions. Similarly, in one Para the Ld.

CIT(Appeals) writes that the assessee is dealing in seeds and pesticides

having retail business whereas in another para in the same order, the Ld.

CIT(Appeals) states that the assessee is a co-operative non scheduled bank.

Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we deem it fit and proper

to restore the matter back to the file of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) so that he can

adjudicate the matter after appreciating the correct facts in the case of the

assessee. We, therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and

restore back the matter to his file for adjudication after complying with the

principles of natural justice.

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

Order pronounced on 04th day of April, 2019.

Sd/- Sd/- ANIL CHATURVEDI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 04th April, 2019. SB

4 ITA No. 275/PUN/2018 A.Y.2014-15

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :

अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-7, Pune. 4. The CIT-6, Pune. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, “एक-सद�य” ब�च, 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.

// True Copy // आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

�नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.

5 ITA No. 275/PUN/2018 A.Y.2014-15

Date 1 Draft dictated on 04.04.2019 Sr.PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 04.04.2019 Sr.PS/PS 3 Draft proposed and placed JM/AM before the second Member 4 Draft discussed/approved by AM/JM second Member 5 Approved draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement on Sr.PS/PS 7 Date of uploading of order Sr.PS/PS 8 File sent to Bench Clerk Sr.PS/PS 9 Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk 10 Date on which file goes to the A.R 11 Date of dispatch of order

DATTATRAYA PANDURANG JAWALKAR,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 14(4), PUNE

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Recent GST High Court judgments