SHRI KEYUR N. PANCHANI, L/R. OF LATE SHRI NARENDRA G. PANCHANI,RAJKOT-GUJARAT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2), RAJKOT-GUJARAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 490/RJT/2014Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 July 2018AY 2006-075 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed a non-speaking ex parte order without proper reasoning. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing the assessee with a reasonable opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was decided ex parte by the CIT(A) due to non-appearance. The assessee's representative filed an affidavit explaining the situation and the death of the original assessee, requesting a fresh adjudication.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex parte order without proper reasoning and whether the assessee should be granted a fresh opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 69,Section 250(6),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED

For Respondent: Smt. Usha N. Shrote, Sr.D.R
Pronounced: 13/07/2018

आदेश / O R D E R

PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The captioned appeal has been filed at the instance of the Assessee against the appellate order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-IV, Rajkot [CIT(A) in short] vide appeal no.CIT(A)- IV/0166/2008-09 dated 11.06.2014 arising in the assessment order passed under s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in-after

ITA No.490/Rjt/2014 Shri Keyur N. Panchani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2006-07 - 2 - referred to as "the Act") dated 26.12.2008 relevant to Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the total addition of Rs.551840/- made by the Assessing Officer. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.441304/- as unaccounted stock u/s.69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.110539/- as unexplained deficit in cash u/s. 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not discussing grounds of appeal raised by the appellant and not recording their independent finding on the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant. 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in passing the appeal order by just narrating and repeating the order of the Assessing Office and thus by passing non-speaking order. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the charging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when demand of income Tax itself is not sustainable. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming initiation of penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1) (c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, when demand of Income Tax itself is not sustainable.

ITA No.490/Rjt/2014 Shri Keyur N. Panchani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2006-07 - 3 - Your Honour's appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any one or more grounds of appeal on/or before hearing of appeal.” 3. At the outset, it was observed that the Ld. CIT(A) decided the appeal ex parte vide order dated 11.06.2014 due to non-appearance of the assessee or his authorized representative. Against the impugned ex parte order of Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed an appeal before us prayed to restore the matter to the file of ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law. The ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee also filed the affidavit of the legal representative of the assessee as reproduced below: “I, the undersigned, Smt. Shobhanaben Narendrabhai Panchani, wife of Late Shri Narendra Gokalbhai Panchani and mother of Late Shri Keyurbhai Narendrabhai Panchani Hindu Adult, residing at "Keyur", Saraswati Society-2, Nirmala Road, Rajkot, solemnly affirms and state as under: 1.0 That Shri Keyurbhai Narendrabhai Panchani (deceased) [L/R of Late Shri Narenda G. Panchani] was my son, died on 08.03.2017. 2.0 That the deceased have left behind me as an only legal heir and apart from me the deceased did not have any other legal heirs. 3.0 That income tax appellant proceedings / Income tax related proceedings were pending against the deceased in the capacity of Legal heir of Late Shri Narendrabhai Gokalbhai Panchani at the time of his demise. 5.0 That after the death of my son Late Shri Keyurbhai Narendrabhai Panchani, I am an only legal heir of him to carry out necessary formalities related to the pending income tax matters including filing an appeal, appointing tax consultant / chartered accountant, signing an appeal / other documents, appearing before any income tax authority or appellate

ITA No.490/Rjt/2014 Shri Keyur N. Panchani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2006-07 - 4 - authority, give any statement on oath etc. on behalf of the deceased. 5.0 That I will be wholly and fully responsible for all the acts done in the capacity of a legal heir of the deceased and outcome arrives from such acts will legally binding to me. I declare on oath that, whatever stated as above is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.” On the other hand the ld. DR did not object if the matter is remanded to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the provision of law.

4.

We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. On perusal of appellate order, we find that Ld. CIT(A) affirmed the action of Assessing Officer ex parte without mentioning any reason for confirming the same on merits. The provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act require the Commissioner (Appeal) to dispose off the appeal in writing with reasoning.

4.1 We also note that the present case is represented by the legal representative of the assessee. Thus, in such circumstances, we find in the interest of justice and fair play that Ld. CIT(A) should have given another opportunity to the assessee to appear before him to explain his points of contentions. Therefore, in this view of the matter, we are inclined to remit the matter back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the issue raised by the assessee on merit after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is needless to

ITA No.490/Rjt/2014 Shri Keyur N. Panchani vs. ITO Asst.Year –2006-07 - 5 - say that the assessee should co-operate in the appellate proceeding and attend the hearing as and when required by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, this ground of assessee’s appeal stands allowed for statistical purpose.

5.

In the result, for statistical purpose, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 13/07/2018

Sd/- Sd/- ¼e/kqferk jkW; e/kqferk jkW; e/kqferk jkW;½ e/kqferk jkW; ¼olhe vgen olhe vgen½ olhe vgen olhe vgen U;kf;d lnL; U;kf;d lnL; Yks[kk ln Yks[kk lnL; L; U;kf;d lnL; U;kf;d lnL; Yks[kk ln Yks[kk ln L; L; (MADHUMITA ROY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 13/07/2018 Priti Yadav, 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

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →