SHRI.MUKESH KUMAR SOLANKI,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, BANGALORE

This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) – 5, Bangalore dated 26/9/2016 for assessment year 2008-09.

The grounds raised by the assessee are as under:

It was submitted by the ld AR of the assessee that in ground Nos.1, 2 and 3, the assessee has disputed the validity of reassessment order passed by the AO which has upheld by the ld CIT(A). In this regard, he has drawn our attention to reasons recorded by the AO for reopening which are available on page 10 of the paper book. He pointed out that as per the reasons recorded by the AO as available at page 10 of the paper book, the main basis stated is the statement of Mr. Mukesh Chokshi Director of M/s Mahasagar Securities Ltd., in which, it is alleged that he has stated that his business activities is to provide accommodative entries for long term and short term capital gains, purchase and sales of shares etc. and he has also provided list of beneficiaries which include the name of the assessee also. He submitted that neither the copy of the statement of Mr. Mukesh Chokshi nor the list of beneficiaries have been made available to the assessee. He submitted that under these facts, judgments of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court rendered in the case of Chandra Devi Kothari in writ petition No.39370/2014 dated 2nd of Feb, 2015 copy available at pages 63 to 69 of the case law compilation is squarely applicable. He particularly drawn my attention to Para No.8 of this judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, as per which, it was held that since the petitioner has been denied an opportunity of fair hearing by providing copy of the statement and related details, the matter is required to be reconsidered by the AO by providing fair and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee after furnishing details/copy of the statement based on which the impugned assessment order has been passed. He submitted that in the light of the facts of the present case and as per this judgment of Hon’ble Karnataka High Court, in the present case also, the entire matter should be restored back to the file of the AO for fresh decision with same directions.

The ld DR supported the orders of the lower authorities.

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:-

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. As per the facts noted by the High Court in the earlier paras of judgment and as per the facts of the present case, I find that the facts are similar and ld DR of the Revenue also could not point out any difference in facts and hence, by respectfully following this judgment of Karnataka High Court, I set aside the order of ld CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the AO for fresh decision with the same directions as were given 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 merit of the addition.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 17th March, 2017.