RAMDEV BUILDCON,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-3(2)(1) (PREVIOUSLY WARD- 3(2)(4)), AHMEDABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD
Before: DR. BRR KUMAR & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL
PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, (in short “Ld.
CIT(A)”), Ahmedabad vide order dated 06.05.2024 passed for A.Y. 2016-
17. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:-
“1. The order passed by lower authorities is bad in law and required to be quashed.
Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in making addition of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- merely on statement of partner without any circumstantial evidence ignoring fact that statement recorded during the survey proceedings does not have any evidential value.
Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in passing ex-parte order and thus violated principle of natural justice. Asst.Year –2016-17 - 2–
Both lower authorities erred in law and on facts in passing orders without providing statements of the persons relied on and consequential cross examination.
Charging Interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D are unjustified.
Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) is unjustified.”
The brief facts of the case are that the assesse is a partnership firm and during the impugned year under consideration, the assessee filed return of income declaring income at Rs.14,61,569/-. As survey had been carried out at the premises of the assessee on 24.09.2016, in which certain documents were found and impounded and statement of Shri Santvan K. Rathod, a partner in the assessee firm was recorded. In the said statement given by Shri Santvan K. Rathod, he admitted that the assessee had received net profit of Rs. 1 crore in addition to the regular income for the relevant assessment year. However, while filing return of income, the above admitted income of Rs. 1 crore was not offered for taxation by the assessee firm. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer added a sum of Rs. 1 crore, as additional income not disclosed by the assessee firm in the return of income.
In appeal before Ld. CIT(A), despite issuance of several notices of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Accordingly, Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer.
The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A) confirming the assessment order. On going through the records of the case we observe that there has been consistent non- cooperation and non-appearance by the assessee before the Revenue Asst.Year –2016-17 - 3–
authorities. However, looking into the quantum of additions made in the hands of the assessee and in the interest of justice, the matter is restored to the file of Ld. CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, after giving due opportunity of hearing to the assessee. However, in view of consisting non-cooperation by the assessee at all stages of hearing, we are of the view that this is a fit case where a cost of Rs. 5,000/- be imposed on the assessee and the assessee is directed to deposit the same with to the Prime Minister
Relief Fund.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
This Order is pronounced in the Open Court on 15/01/2025 (DR. BRR KUMAR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Ahmedabad; Dated 15/01/2025
TANMAY, Sr. PSआदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant
2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयुƅ / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A)-
5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,
उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.