Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, S M C “ B ” BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI
O R D E R These appeals filed by the assesses are directed against different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bangalore. The assesses are aggrieved by the decision of ld. CIT (Appeals). Since common issue is involved in all these appeals, they are heard together and consolidated order is passed for the sake of convenience. We take up for consideration.
The assessee has raised the following grounds :
The facts of the case are that the assessee filed his Return of Income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 30.09.2008 declaring a total income of Rs.2,13,550. As per the information received from the DIT (Intelligence and Criminal Investigation) New Delhi, a search action was conducted in the case of Mahasagar Group on 25.11.2009. Out of the persons benefitted, the assessee in whose case information was gathered that an amount of Rs.6,85,454 chargeable to tax as income from other sources has escaped assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09. A notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued, since no response by the assessee, Notice under Section 148, a reminder was issued. The representative of the assessee
4 & 1316 to 1321/Bang/2019 submitted detailed explanation during the course of assessment substantiating the claim of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act and furnished all the relevant documentary evidences. The Assessing Officer without appreciating the contentions of the assessee, denied the claim of exemption under Section 10(38) of the Act and consequently levied interest under the relevant provisions. The assessee filed an appeal with the CIT (Appeals) who concurred the action of the Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of assessee. The assessee is in appeal before us.
At the time of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative submitted that the issue in dispute is squarely covered by the decision of ITAT, Bangalore Bench in Dt.21.01.2020 (Sri Ranjeet Kumar Bothra Vs. ITO). On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the issues in these are squarely covered by the judgements in favour of Department which are as follows : i) Suman Poddar Vs. ITO Dt.17.09.2019 in ITA No.841/2019 (Delhi HC) ii) Udit Kalra Vs. ;ITO Dt.8.3.2019 in ITA No.220/2019 & CM No.10774/2019 (Del HC) 5. We have heard both the parties and perused the material on record. In our opinion, the issues are squarely covered by the decision of Bangalore Bench of 2015-16 and held in pars 5 to7 as under :
After hearing both the sides and perusing the material on record, I find that similar issue was considered by this Tribunal in the case of Shri. Kirti K.Bhansali v. ITO for assessment year 2008-2009 in ITA No.105/Bang/2019. Vide order dated 24.05.2019, the Tribunal held as under:- “4.3.1 I have considered the rival submissions and first of all, I reproduce Para No.8 of the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of M/s. Chandra Devi Kothari (Supra) and this is 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 reconsidered 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.” 4.3.2 From the above Para from the judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, it is seen that matter was restored back to the file of the AO for fresh decision after providing copy of the statement of Shri Mukesh Choksi and other related details. As per the facts noted by the High Court in the earlier paras of judgment (supra) and as per the facts of the case on hand, there appears to be no difference in facts and therefore by respectfully following this judgment in the case of Chandra Devi Kothari (Supra), I set aside the impugned orders of learned CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2008-09 and restore the matters to the file of the AO for fresh decision with the same directions as were issued by the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case as per Para No.8 of the judgment reproduced above. In view of this decision, no adjudication is called for at this stage regarding the merits of the addition.”
In view of the above order of the Tribunal, I inclined to remit the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh with similar directions as held by the Tribunal in the case of Shri. Kirti K. Bhansali (supra). 6.1 In view of the above, I am not inclined to comment upon any other grounds of appeal
on merits of the issue at this stage.
7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.”
Respectfully following the above decision of Tribunal, I am inclined to remit the matter to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh after giving cross examination of the concerned parties, in accordance with law. Levy of interest under Section 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act are consequential in nature.
6 & 1316 to 1321/Bang/2019 6. Since the issue involved in ITA Nos.1316 to 1321/Bang/2019 are similar, the above finding equally applies and remit to the file of Assessing Officer with similar directions as above.
In the result, appeals of the assesses are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.