Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC-C” BENCH : BANGALORE
Before: SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA
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), Mysore dated31.08.2016 for Assessment Year 2011-12.
The grounds raised
by the assessee are as under. “1. The order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in so far as it is against the appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The order passed by Ld. A.0 and upheld by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is arbitrary in as much as the same was made without providing the mandatory opportunity to be heard under the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs.46,17,550/- as determined by the authorities below as against the reported total taxable income of Rs.4,66,590/- by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case.
4. The authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs.86,789/- as difference in total income under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The Authorities below are justified in making an addition of Rs.26,13,140 /- as difference in sales under the facts and circumstances of the case.
6. The authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs.2,20,000/-towards unproved creditors under the facts and circumstances of the case.
7. The authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs.2,74,690/-as VAT difference under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The authorities below are not justified in disallowing a sum of Rs. 86,625/-under the head labour wages under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs. 52,379/-being the interest debited on Agriculture loan under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The authorities below are not justified in making a disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia) of Rs.6,10,810/- under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs. 71,759/- as Unexplained expenditure-royalty under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs.1,32,570/-as Unexplained Investment under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The authorities below are not justified in making an addition of Rs. 2,239/- as Excess Depreciation under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Without prejudice to the right to seek waiver with the Hon'ble CCIT/DG, the appellant denies himself liable to be charged to interest u/s 234B of the Act, which under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case deserves to be cancelled.
The appellant craves leave to add, alter, substitute and delete any or all of the grounds of appeal urged above.
16. Wherefore the Appellant prays that this Hon'ble Tribunal be pleased to allow the appeal and set-aside the orders passed by the authorities below to the extent they are against the appellant and pass such other order as this Hon'ble Tribunal deem fit and proper on the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.” 3. At the very outset, it was submitted by ld. AR of assessee that this appeal was filed late before the Tribunal and the delay is of 131 days. He also submitted that the assessee has made an application for condonation of delay along with an affidavit. He submitted that the delay should be condoned. The ld. DR of revenue strongly opposed the condonation of delay.
4. I have considered the rival submissions. I find that in the affidavit filed by the assessee, it has been stated that he has shifted his residence from Holenarsipur to Hassan and his aged mother who was residing at his earlier address at the relevant point of time and she received the order of CIT(A) and because of her old age and lack of education, she has forgotten to handover the order to him and on a subsequent date when the assessee visited his mother, he came across the postal envelope containing the appellate order and thereafter, he immediately took steps to file the appeal before the Tribunal. Considering these facts, I condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.
5. The ld. AR of assessee submitted that for the same reasons for which he could not file the appeal before the Tribunal in time, he could not make compliance before CIT(A) also because only one hearing notice was issued by CIT(A) fixing the date of hearing on 30.08.2016 and the same did not reach to the assessee because of the same reasons and therefore, 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 and if this is done the assessee will ensure proper compliance before CIT(A). The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of CIT (A).
I have considered the rival submissions. In view of these facts that the assessee has shifted his residence during the relevant period and the notice was actually served on the aged mother of assessee and it did not actually reach to the assessee, it will be in the interest of justice to provide one more opportunity to the assessee and hence, I set aside the order of CIT (A) and restore the matter back to its file for fresh decision after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to assessee. In view of this decision, no adjudication is called for regarding the merit of the case at the present stage. Hence, I do not make any comment on the merit of the case.
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.