Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI INTURI RAMA RAOShri Injeti Mahesh,
This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the CIT(A), Hubli, dated 30/01/2013 for the assessment year 2008-09.
2. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal:
Page 2 of 5 1. The order of the authorities below 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.
The appellant denies himself to be assessed on a sum of Rs. 11,51,75,938/- as against a sum of Rs.30,71,210/- as declared by the appellant under the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The authorities below erred in making an addition of Rs.11,03,30,000/- as unexplained credits under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Without prejudice, the amount added is wrong and requires to be made as Nil on the facts of the case.
Without prejudice, the addition is bad in law as the provisions of section 68 of the Act are not applicable for trade credits on the facts of the case.
The authorities below erred in making an addition of Rs.7,41,993/- as unexplained fixed deposits under the facts and circumstances of the case.
The authorities below erred in making an addition of Rs.9,91,494/- as unexplained credit card expenditure under the facts and circumstances of the case.
Without prejudice, the amount added is wrong and requires to be made as Nil on the facts of the case.
Without prejudice, the addition made is highly excessive and needs to be substantially reduced under the facts of the case. 10.The learned CIT-A erred in not providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant which is in violation of the settled principles of natural justice. 11.The appellant denies himself liable to be levied to interest under section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and further the computation of Page 3 of 5 interest was not provided to the appellant as regard to the rate, period and method of calculation of interest under the facts and circumstances of the case. 12.The appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above. 13.In view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.
Briefly facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business of trading in iron ore. Return of income for assessment year 2009-10 was filed on 28/10/2009 declaring a total income of Rs.30,71,210/-. After processing the return of income under the provisions of sec.143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for short] the return of income was taken up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) vide order dated 31/12/2011 at a total income of Rs.11,51,75,938/- after making the following additions: i. Unexplained credits of Rs.11,03,30,000/- ii. Unexplained fixed deposits of Rs.7,41,993/- iii. Unexplained credit card expenditure Rs.9,91,494/- During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed that the assessee had failed to explain sundry creditors of Rs.11,03,30,000/- and brought the same to be under the provisions of sec.68 of the Act.
4. Being aggrieved, an appeal was preferred before the CIT(A) who confirmed the same holding that despite several
Page 4 of 5 notices of hearing, there was no compliance to the hearing notices.
5. Being aggrieved, assessee is in present appeal before us. Learned AR of the assessee submitted that the assessee had discharged initial onus of filing details of sundry creditors such as name, address, PA No. and the mode of receipt of amount from the above parties. The AO merely made addition disbelieving the explanation of the assessee. Learned AR of the assessee further submitted that the assessee could not represent before the CIT(A) on account of his hospitalization at Hyderabad. Notice of hearing was not served on the assessee on account of shifting the place of residence from Bellary to Hyderabad owing to his illness. In the circumstances, he prayed that the issue may be remanded back for fresh adjudication to the file of the CIT(A). On the other hand, learned Departmental Representative had no serious objection to the plea canvassed by the learned AR of the assessee.
6. After hearing the rival submission and going through the record, we are of the considered opinion that in the interest of justice, the matter should be remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as the CIT(A) had not decided the matter on merits. We, accordingly, remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) for de novo adjudication.
Page 5 of 5 7. In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.