Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI A. K. GARODIA
Assessment year : 2013-14 Smt. Vinoda S. Kotagunshi, The Income Tax Officer, Narayan Nilaya, M. S. Revankar, Ward – 1(4), Magajikondi Layout, Vs. Hubli. Hubli – 580 024. PAN : BRHPK 9711 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Ravishankar, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Ganesh G. R, Standing Counsel Date of hearing : 19.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 26.12.2019 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee and the same is directed against the order of learned CIT(A), Hubballi, dated 15.03.2019, for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The ground raised by the assessee in this appeal are as under:-
1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli, passed under section 250 of the Act in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, natural justice, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.
2. The appellant denies herself to be liable to be assessed to total income of Rs.17,1o,360/- as against the returned income of Rs. 78,870/- on the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was not justified in not affording sufficient opportunity of hearing and consequently passed the order in violation of principles of natural justice on the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in not adjudicating on the grounds of appeal and summarily dismissed the appeal, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
Page 2 of 4 5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in law in not annulling the reassessment since the reasons recorded for reopening were not furnished, thus vitiating the proceedings, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) erred in law and on fact in holding that the appellant had failed to establish the source of cash deposited in the bank accounts, when the same was explained satisfactorily before the lower authorities, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned CIT(A) was not justified on facts in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs. 10,07,000/- being sale proceeds of house property of the spouse and deposited into the joint account and hence the source of the deposit was explained, on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the appellant had substantiated before the Assessing Officer that the remaining amounts received were out of inheritance/past savings and thus was a capital receipt/capital and thus the additions made ought to have been deleted on the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, substitute, change and delete any of the grounds of appeal
10. For the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed and justice rendered.
2. It was submitted by learned AR of the assessee in the course of hearing that it is noted by learned CIT(A) in para No.4 of his order that the assessee was given an opportunity of being heard and making submissions in support of the assessee’s claims on the various dates that were fixed from 09.05.2018 to 10.09.2018. He submitted that it is also noted by the learned CIT(A) in the same para of his order that final opportunity was provided to the assessee on 10.09.2018 and the learned AR for the assessee appeared on 08.08.2018 and requested for further time till 27.08.2018. He pointed out that on the first page of his order, it is noted by the learned CIT(A) that the last date of hearing was 08.08.2018. He submitted that it goes to show that further opportunity of hearing on 27.08.2018 was not provided by the learned CIT(A) to the assessee although the impugned order was passed by him on 15.03.2019. He submitted that under these facts and in the interest of justice, the matter may