Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA
Shri Shivanand Veerbasappa Palled, The Income Tax 2nd Cross, Nandeeshwar Officer, Nagar, vs. Ward – 2, Kalaspur Road, Gadag. Gadag – 582 103. PAN: ASBPP5211F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Ms. Mrinalini .R, Advocate Respondent by : Shri A. Ramesh Kumar, JCIT (DR) Date of hearing : 16.01.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 18.01.2019 O R D E R
Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member
This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A),Hubballi dated 25.10.2018 for Assessment Year 2015-16.
The grounds raised by the assessee are as under. Tax effect relating to each Ground of Grounds of Appeal appeal (see note below) The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the ADDITION 1. of Rs.24,38,569/- without appreciating the Rs.5,73,270/- grounds that the appellant had sufficient source for making deposit in bank. . The Learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate that learned Income Tax Officer has not considered the availability of agricultural 2. -do- income and loans taken from bank but only relied upon on the alternative plea to make addition. The order of the Learned Commissioner ofIncome Tax (App speaking order and the 3. learned CIT(A) ought to have gone into the do- case before rejecting the appeal on the ground of non-appearn, Page 2 of 3 4. The Learned CIT(A) ought to have deleted Rs.76,948/- the amount assessed under the head Other 5. The orders passed by learned authorities do below arenotsustainable in law.
6. Levy of interest u/s.234A & B of the Act are Rs.3,54,145/- not warranted and excessive. The learned Authority has wrongly calculated tax at Rs.7,53,518/- as against 7. Rs.1,03,300/- Rs.6,50,218/- and this requires to be deleted by the Hon'ble Tribunal. The appellant prays that this Hon'ble be pleased to permit the appellant to add, delete or modify any ground or grounds at the time of hearing.
3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that the impugned order of CIT (A) is ex-parte qua the assessee. He pointed out that it is noted by CIT(A) in Para 3 of his order that the assessee was given opportunities of being heard and to make submissions on 20.08.2018 and 11.10.2018 but the assessee failed to appear or respond or make any submissions. He further pointed out that as per the same Para of the order of CIT (A), the assessee was given final opportunity of being heard on 25.10.2018 but on this date also, there was no compliance. He submitted that this is true that the assessee could not appear before CIT(A) on these three dates fixed by CIT(A) but CIT(A) should have decided the issue on merit instead of dismissing the appeal of the assessee in limine. He submitted that in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).
4. I have considered the rival submissions. First of all, I reproduce para 3 of the order of CIT(A) as per which this appeal was decided by him. The same is as under. “3. During the course of appeal proceedings, the assessee was given opportunities of being heard and to make submissions on Dt.20.08.2018, & Dt. 11.10.2018, but the assessee failed to appear or respond or make any submissions. As the assessee had failed to submit even verified copies of his online application for appeal, or any other submission, since filing his appeal, he was given a final opportunity of Page 3 of 3 being heard and to make his submissions on Dt.25.10.2018. However, the assessee again failed to appear, respond or make any submission in support of his claims and reasons why the assessee had not submitted the required information before the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, the assessee, Mr. Shivanand Veerbasappa Palled, was unable to make any submission in support of his claims in his appeal for A.Y.2015-16.”
5. From the above para reproduced from the order of CIT (A), it is seen that in fact, 3 dates were fixed by CIT (A) for hearing and the assessee did not appear on any of these dates but even in the absence of the assessee, the CIT (A) should have decided the appeal of the assessee on merit instead of dismissing the appeal in limine. Since this was not done by CIT(A), I set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this decision, no adjudication is called for regarding the merit of the case at the present stage.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page.