Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI. N. V. VASUDEVAN & SHRI. A. K. GARODIA
Mr. Goutamchand Kothari (HUF), Income Tax Officer, No.92, Link Road, Sheshadripuram, Ward – 2(2)(1), Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 020. Vs. PAN : AAAHG 6081 P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assesseeee by : Shri. G. S. Prashanth, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Nischal, JCIT (DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru Date of hearing : 26.10.2020 Date of Pronouncement : 26.10.2020 O R D E R PER ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, A. M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order passed by learned CIT(A)-2, Bengaluru, dated 31.01.2019 for Assessment Year 2014-15. The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:
In the course of hearing, it was submitted by learned AR of the assessee that under similar facts, the Tribunal has disposed of similar issue in the case of Shri. Likhit Kothari Vs. ITO in and 700/Bang2019 dated 30.09.2020 and copy of this Tribunal order is available on pages 8 to 13 of the case law compilation filed by him. He pointed out that in this case, the Tribunal has Page 4 of 6 followed the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari Vs. ITO in WP No.39370/2014 (T-IT) dated 02.02.2015 and copy of this judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court is also available on pages 1-7 of the case law compilation filed by him. He further pointed out that by following this judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, the Tribunal has restored back the matter to the file of AO for a fresh decision with similar direction as were given by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in para 8 of that judgment rendered in the case of Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari Vs. ITO (supra). He submitted that in the present case also, the facts are similar and therefore, in the present case also, the matter should be restored back to the file of AO with similar directions. Learned DR of the Revenue supported the orders of CIT(A).
We have considered the rival submissions. First of all, we reproduce para 5 of this Tribunal order cited by learned AR of the assessee having been rendered in the case of Shri. Likhit Kothari Vs. ITO (supra). This para reads as under: “5. We have considered the rival submissions and since, learned DR of the revenue could not point out any difference in facts in the present case and in the case of Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari (Supra), this bench is bound to follow this judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari (Supra) in preference to the judicial pronouncements on which learned DR of the revenue placed reliance. Respectfully following the same, we set aside the order of CIT (A) in both years and restore this matter to the AO for fresh decision with the same directions as were given by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in para 8 of that judgment. The assessee should produce before the AO, a copy of this judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari (Supra) and the AO should pass necessary order as per law after providing fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after furnishing the details/copy of the statement on which impugned assessment order has been passed. In view of this, no adjudication is called for about any other ground raised
before the tribunal.”
4. We also feel it proper to reproduce para 8 of the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari Vs. ITO Page 5 of 6 (supra) from page 6 of the case law compilation filed by learned AR of the assessee. This para reads as under: “8. In the light of the facts and circumstances as adverted to above, and as the petitioner has been denied an opportunity of fair hearing by providing copy of the statement and related details regarding the alleged share amount, I am of the view that the matter requires to be re-considered by the respondent by providing fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by furnishing the details/copy of the statement based on which the impugned assessment order has been passed."
We find that in the present case also, this is the ground No.3C raised by the assessee before the Tribunal that learned CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO on the basis of investigation report of Kolkata Investigation Directorate which was not put forth by the assessee for rebuttal and therefore, it is against the principle of natural justice. In para 8 of the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as reproduced above, this is the finding that the petitioner has been denied an opportunity of fair hearing by providing copy of the statement and related documents regarding the alleged share amount. Learned DR of the Revenue also could not point out any difference in facts in the present case and in these cases which are cited by learned AR of the assessee. Hence, respectfully following these cited judgments of the Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal and of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court as noted above, we set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore this matter back to the file of AO for fresh decision with the same directions as were given by Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in para 8 of the judgment rendered in the case of Mrs. Chandra Devi Kothari Vs. ITO (supra) as reproduced above. We want to make it clear that the AO should provide adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee after furnishing the details / copy of the statement and / or investigation report of Kolkata Investigation Directorate. In view of this decision, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage.