ABDUL SAMAD BAWA,PUTTUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, PUTTUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1247/BANG/2014Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 December 2015AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee to present its case. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) was set aside, and the appeal was remanded back for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 7 lakhs based on discrepancies in stock found during a survey. The assessee, a jeweller, had initially offered this income but did not include it in the return filed on a presumptive basis. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee's appeal without granting a proper opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Whether the addition made by the AO on account of stock discrepancy is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AF

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, BANGALORE BENCH C, BANGALORE

For Appellant: Smt. M. R. Vanaja, Advocate

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCH 'C', BANGALORE SHRI. ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Assessment Year : 2008-09) Shri. Abdul Samad Bawa, Prop : M/s. Bawa Jewellers, Court Road, Puttur .. Appellant PAN : ABRPB4032F v. Income-tax Officer, Ward -1, Puttur .. Respondent Assessee by : Smt. M. R. Vanaja, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Sunil Kumar Agarwala, JCIT Heard on : 17.12.2015 Pronounced on :28 .12.2015 O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

In this appeal filed by assessee, it has altogether taken ten grounds of which grounds 2 and 3 say that CIT (A) had passed the order in violation of natural justice and equity without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee to present its case.

ITA.1247/Bang/2014 Page - 2

2.

AO had made an addition of Rs.7 lakhs based on certain discrepancies in stock alleged to have been found at the time of survey. Assessee was a jeweller. It seems assessee offered an income of Rs.7 lakhs at the time of survey, but when he filed the return the said income was not shown. AO had considered the excess stock in silver articles and the excess gold jewellery found at the time of survey and worked out a value of such excess stock at Rs.6,88,896/-. Assessee had filed the return declaring income on presumptive basis u/s.44AF of the Act. However, AO did not accept this return. He completed the assessment by making an addition of Rs.7 lakhs.

3.

Though the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT (A), it seems he did not enter appearance on the dates fixed for hearing. CIT (A) after going through the grounds raised by the assessee confirmed the order of AO and dismissed the appeal.

4.

Before us, Ld. AR submitted that opportunity was not given by the CIT (A) before deciding the appeal of the assessee.

5.

Per contra, Ld. DR supported the orders of lower authorities.

ITA.1247/Bang/2014 Page - 3

6.

I have perused the orders and heard the rival contentions. The case seems to have been posted by the CIT (A) for hearing on three dates viz., 03.12.2013, 26.12.2013 and 19.03.2014. The gap between the first two dates was only 23 days rendering the second opportunity a virtual non- starter. Thus assessee was effectively given only two chances of supporting its case with necessary evidence. In the circumstances I am of the opinion that the assessee can be given one more chance. To meet the ends of justice, I set aside the order of CIT (A) and remit the appeal back to the file of CIT (A) to decide it afresh in accordance with law after giving one more opportunity to the assessee. However if the assessee does not enter appearance before CIT (A) on the appointed date, CIT (A) shall decide the issues on merits as per available record.

7.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 28th day of December, 2015.

More judgments on Section 44AF

All 212 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AF →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →