SUNIL KUMAR SAHAY,RANCHI vs. ITO WARD-1(1), RANCHI

1 ITA No.75/Ran/2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI

BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA No.75/Ran/2017 A.Y. : 2008-2009 Sunil Kumar Sahay, vs ITO Ward-1(1), Ranchi Qtr.No.E-39, Sector-3, HEC Colony, Ranchi-834004 PAN No. : ABUPS 2802 B Respondent (Appellant) . Assessee by : Shri R.K.Kaushal, CA Revenue by :Shri P.K.Mondal, JCIT Date of Hearing : 29.05.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 30.05.2018 O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale, JM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A),

Ranchi, dated 14.12.2016 for the assessment year 2008-2009.

seeking adjournment and the same has been withdrawn and accordingly

the adjournment application filed by the assessee is dismissed as

withdrawn.

That the Assessment Order is based on wrong appreciation of 1. facts, based on whims and presumptions and is not supported by proper facts and proper appreciation of law . WHETHER the assessing officer was justified in making 2. addition of Rupees 11,95,500/- alleging that the investment were made by the Assessee and has invested an amount and the said amount is assessable u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act,

2 ITA No.75/Ran/2017 1961 & without considering the explanations as submitted by the Assessee and without applying the facts of the case and legal provisions ?? . WHETHER the assessing officer was justified in ignoring the 3. very basics of issuing notice u/s 147/148 and the points for which the permission of the Commissioner of Income Tax was obtained and making the addition which were not consented to by the Commissioner of Income Tax without applying the facts of the case and legal provisions ?? WHETHER the income truly and fully assessable in the hands 4. of Firms can be justifiably assessed in the hands of the partners of the firm?? Any other Grounds of appeal which the Assessee may think fit 5. in the light of the circumstances and fitness of the case at the time of hearing to get the justice form the Hon’ble Sir.

proceedings of Sri Adiya Vikram Jaiswal for the assessment year 2010-

2011, the AO noted that M/s ABC Construction is not filing its return of

income. The AO had evidence in his possession from the case of Sri Adiya

Vikram Jaiswal that land worth Rs.56,61,456/- was sold in the F.Y.2009-10.

The above land was purchased on 13.05.2008 and 23.05.2008 by making

payment of Rs.20,91,000/- and Rs.11,43,000/-. Payment of Rs.23.91

lakhs making payment of 20,91,000/- and Rs.9,00,000/- respectively.

Further Rs.8,43,000/- was paid in the financial year 2008-09. The AO

therefore reason to believe that investment for the financial year 2007-08

relevant to A.Y.2008-09 as well as interest and remuneration to partners

was not disclosed by the firm. Considering the above facts notice u/s.148

of the Act was issued on 28.03.2014. However, no compliance to this

notice was made, rather the assessee denied having made any such

transaction and asked the AO to supply information as was in his

3 ITA No.75/Ran/2017 possession. Accordingly the assessee was supplied with the copies of the

purchase deeds. Thereafter AO completed the assessment making

addition of Rs.11,95,500/- u/s.69 of the Act and assessed the total income

at Rs.16,90,520/- and passed order u/s.147/143(3) of the Act, dated

28.03.2015.

appeal with the CIT(A). In the appellate proceedings the assessee argued

the grounds and reiterated the submissions made before the AO. The

CIT(A) after considering the submissions of assessee and the findings of

AO, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

before the Tribunal.

in law and also the issue of notice u/s.148 of the Act is not in accordance

with the provisions of the Act and assessment has to be quashed and also

the addition made u/s.69 of the Act by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A)

is without any basis and prayed for allowing the appeal.

Prima facie, on perusal of the grounds of appeal, we found that the ld. AR

of the assessee submitted that the assessee has raised additional ground

of appeal wherein he has challenged the order passed u/s.147 of the Act,

which is as under :-

4 ITA No.75/Ran/2017 WHETHER the assessing officer was justified in ignoring the very basics of issuing notice u/s 147/148 and the points for which the permission of the Commissioner of Income Tax was obtained and making the addition which were not consented to by the Commissioner of Income Tax without applying the facts of the case and legal provisions ??

We find that this ground has been raised for the first time before the

Tribunal and accordingly, we consider it appropriate to remit the entire

disputed issue to the file of CIT(A), who shall consider the ground and

verify and examine the issue afresh and pass order after providing

adequate opportunity to the assessee and the assessee shall cooperate in

submitting the information before the CIT(A). Hence, the ground of appeal

of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Sd/- Sd/- (N.S.SAINI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ranchi, Dated 30/05/2018 Prakash Kumar Mishra , Sr. Ps Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant – Sunil Kumar Sahay, Qtr.No.E-39, Sector-3, HEC Colony, Ranchi-834004 2. The Respondent – ITO Ward-1(1), Ranchi 3. The CIT(A) concerned 4. CIT , concerned BY ORDER, 5. DR, ITAT, Ranchi 6. Guard file.

//True Copy// SR.PS, ITAT, RANCHI