Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
Shri E. Manjunath, H.No. 440, 14th Ward, The Deputy Teacher’s Colony, Commissioner of Income Behind Church, Sandur vs. Tax, Taluk, Central Circle – 2 (1), Bellary. Bangalore. PAN: AAGPE7637K APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Balram R. Rao, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Pradeep Kumar, CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 31.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 31.12.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH: All these four appeals are filed by the assessee and these are directed against a combined order of ld. CIT (A)-11, Bangalore dated 11.08.2016 for Assessment Years 2005-06, 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2011-12. All these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order for the sake of convenience. The grounds raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2005-06 in ITA No. 2. 938/Bang/2017 are as under. “1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the Order of the Assessing Officer in the manner in which he did.
2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have provided sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to put forth his claim.
3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the order passed U/s. 144 r.w.Sec. 153A without providing sufficient opportunity to the Appellant.
4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 77,59,800/- which comprised of Rs. 8,72,200/- being a hand loan and Rs. 68,87,600/- being cash payment on the basis of surmises and conjecture.
5. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the interest levied U/s. to 941/Bang/2017 Page 2 of 4 234A & 234B amounting to Rs. 23,76,155/-, Rs. 24,79,466/- respectively.
6. For these and other such grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” The grounds raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2008-09 in ITA No. 3. 939/Bang/2017 are as under. “1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the Order of the Assessing Officer in the manner in which he did.
2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have provided sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to put forth his claim.
3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the order passed U/s. 144 r.w.Sec. 153A without providing sufficient opportunity to the Appellant.
4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,59,82,568/-which comprised of Rs. 10,52,34,998/- being cheques seized from the Appellant's premises which were retained by the Department.
5. The Learned CIT(Appeals) erred in upholding addition of cash payment of Rs.5,87,970/- without appreciating the fact that the same was considered in the income declared.
6. The Learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have appreciated that the cheques were seized by the Department and was not credited to the account of Appellant and therefore the addition was uncalled for.
7. The learned CIT(Appeals) ought to have appreciated the fact that the order passed U/s. 144 r.w.Sec. 153A was an order made on the basis of surmises and conjecture.
8. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the interest levied U/s. 234A, 234B & 234C amounting to Rs. 57,54,694/-, Rs. 1,11,48,880/- & Rs.226/- respectively.
9. For these and other such grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” The grounds raised by the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 in ITA No. 4. 940/Bang/2017 are as under. “1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the Order of the Assessing Officer in the manner in which he did.
2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to put forth his claim.
The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the order passed U/s. 144 r.w.Sec. 153A without providing sufficient opportunity to the Appellant.
The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.2,15,93,352/- which comprised of Rs. 56,90,500/- being cash deposit and Rs. 1.59,02,852/- being cheque deposit in State Bank of Mysore on the basis of surmises and conjecture. 5. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the interest levied U/s. 234A & 234B amounting to Rs. 11,72,216/- & Rs. 22,70,773/- respectively. 6. For these and other such grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.” The grounds raised
by the assessee for Assessment Year 2011-12 in ITA No. 5. 941/Bang/2017 are as under. “1. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the Order of the Assessing Officer in the manner in which he did.
2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) failed to provide sufficient opportunity to the Appellant to put forth his claim.
3. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the order passed U/s. 144 r.w.Sec. 153A without providing sufficient opportunity to the Appellant.
4. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.2,73,19,651/- which comprised of Rs. 86,90,951/- being cheque deposit and Rs.1,86,28,700/- being cash deposit in State Bank of Mysore on the basis of surmises and conjecture.
5. The Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the interest levied U/s. 234A & 234B amounting to Rs. 16,58,278/- & Rs. 19,89,934/- respectively.
6. For these and other such grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed.”
6. 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 submitted that it is true that ld. CIT (A) has fixed five dates of hearing on 21.11.2014, 15.12.2014, 10.01.2015, 29.06.2015 and 29.12.2015 and the assessee has appeared only on three dates i.e. 21.11.2014, 15.12.2014 and 29.06.2015 and requested for to 941/Bang/2017 Page 4 of 4 adjournment which was granted by CIT (A) and on remaining two dates i.e. on 10.01.2015 and 29.12.2015, the assessee could not appear before CIT (A) and there was no request made for adjournment also. He submitted that in spite of this, in the interest of justice, the matter may be restored back to the file of CIT (A) for fresh decision after hearing the ld. AR of assessee. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT(A).
7. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that in spite of non- appearance of the assessee, the ld. CIT (A) should have decided the appeal of the assessee on merit but instead of that, he simply dismissed the appeal by stating that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Under these facts, we feel it proper to set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to his file for fresh decision in all these years after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to both sides. We order accordingly. In view of this, no adjudication is called for regarding the merit of the case at the present stage.
8. In the result, all the four appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on the date of hearing on conclusion of the hearing.