M/S. KAMLESH GANDHI INFRASTRUCTURE,BARODA vs. THE DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1(2), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 554/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 January 2018AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should have dealt with the grounds on merits after giving a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, as summary ex-parte disposal does not advance justice. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed ex-parte, confirming an addition of Rs. 86,38,803/-. The assessee claimed the CIT(A) disregarded their written submissions and violated principles of natural justice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without considering the assessee's written submissions and violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A,Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI S.S. GODARA & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Respondent: Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
Pronounced: 29/01/2018

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद �यायपीठ ‘D’, अहमदाबाद । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD सव�ी एस.एस.गोदारा, �या�यक सद�य एवं �द�प कुमार के�डया, लेखा सद�य के सम� । BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.554/Ahd/2016 (�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

M/s Kamlesh Gandhi The DCIT, Circle-1(2), बनाम/ Infrastructure, 3&4, Vadik Vadodara Vs. Flats, Opp. PF Office, Akota, Vadodara. �थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAKFK0103G .. (अपीलाथ� /Appellant) (��यथ� / Respondent) Shri Chandresh Shah, A.R अपीलाथ� ओर से / Appellant by : ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri V.K. Singh, Sr.DR

25/01/2018 सुनवाई क� तार�ख / Date of Hearing घोषणा क� तार�ख /Date of Pronouncement 29/01/2018 आदेश / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-5, Vadodara [CIT(A) in short] dated 30/12/2015 arising in the Assessment order dated 14.02.2015 passed under section 143(3) of the Act relevant to assessment year 2012-13.

ITA No.554/Ahd/2016 Kamlesh Gandhi Infrastructure vs. DCIT,Cir-1(2) Asst.Year – 2012-13 - 2 - 2. The assessee by way of its grounds of appeal has assailed the action of the CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and in confirming addition of Rs. 86,38,803/- arising in assessment proceedings pursuant to survey under section 133A.

3.

When the matter was called for hearing, the Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee Mr. Chandresh Shah submitted at the outset that the CIT(A) has wrongly passed the appellate order ex-parte disregarding the written submissions made by the assessee on 28.12.2015 in transgression principles of natural justice.

4.

The Ld. Departmental Representative for the Revenue, on the other hand, vehemently submitted that the objection of the assessee is not valid as it failed to appear before the CIT(A) at its own peril in spite of several opportunities given in this regard.

5.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions on the limited aspect of disposal of appeal summarily by way of ex-parte order. On perusal of the assessment order, we note that a survey proceedings were conducted in the case of the assessee on 18.10.2011. Pursuant to survey, a declaration of about Rs. 8.50 crore as unaccounted income was allegedly disclosed by the assessee. However, the assessee while filing the return of income, has allegedly understated the alleged disclosure.

ITA No.554/Ahd/2016 Kamlesh Gandhi Infrastructure vs. DCIT,Cir-1(2) Asst.Year – 2012-13 - 3 - Consequently additions of Rs. 86,38,803/- towards differential figure was made by the AO as unaccounted income. The assessee apparently failed to appear before the CIT(A) in its appeal. The CIT(A) has proceeded to disposed off the appeal ex-parte in the absence of any representation from the assessee. In the ex-parte disposal, the CIT(A) summarily confirmed the aforesaid difference in the disclosure pegged at Rs. 86,38,803/-. The Ld. Authorised Representative for the assessee before us claimed that a correct disclosure has been made after making deduction towards expenditure attributable to such alleged unaccounted income. Without going into the merits of the case, we note that the CIT(A) has not rendered decision on merits having regard to the written submissions made by the assessee before the CIT(A) and the AO.

6.

In our view, it is incumbent upon the CIT(A) to deal with the grounds on merits after giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Needless to say, the CIT(A) play the role of both adjudicating authority as well as appellate authority. Thus, summary disposal by CIT(A) ex- parte towards the issue raised before it do not advance cause of justice having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case. However in the same vain, we appreciate the concern of the Revenue on lackadaisical and non-cooperative attitude of the assessee towards the appellate proceedings.

ITA No.554/Ahd/2016 Kamlesh Gandhi Infrastructure vs. DCIT,Cir-1(2) Asst.Year – 2012-13 - 4 - 7. In the totality of circumstances, we consider it just and expedient to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) in the larger interest of justice with a view to unable the assessee to avail opportunity once more. Needless to say, the assessee shall fully cooperative with the proceedings before CIT(A) without any demur failing which the CIT(A) shall be at liberty to conclude the appellate proceedings in accordance with law. Hence, the order of the CIT(A) dated 30.12.2015 is set aside and all the issues raised in the captained appeal are restored back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee.

8.

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

This Order pronounced in Open Court on 29 / 01/2018

Sd/- Sd/- (एस.एस.गोदारा) (�द�प कुमार के�डया) �या�यक सद�य लेखा सद�य ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) ( S.S. GODARA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 29/01/2018

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →