SHRI PRAVINSINH UDAYSINH VAGHELA,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(2), VADODARA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2123/AHD/2016Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 October 2017AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found it appropriate to give the assessee a further opportunity to present their case. The issue was remitted back to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, taking into account the evidence submitted.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an individual, did not file an income tax return for AY 2010-11. The AO reopened the case and added agricultural income and cash deposits as bogus/undisclosed. The assessee claimed the income belonged to a HUF and submitted supporting documents, which were not considered by the CIT(A) as they were not produced before the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not considering documents submitted by the assessee and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(2)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR&

For Appellant: Shri Prakash B. Thakkar, A.R
For Respondent: Shri Shiv Sewak, Sr. D.R
Hearing: 02.01.2019Pronounced: 01.04.2019

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:

The instant appeal filed by the assessee is against the order dated 05.05.2016 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Vadodara under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to “The Act”) arising out of the order dated 14.03.2014 passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward – 2(2), Baroda for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

The assessee, an individual deriving income from bank interest and agricultural income has not filed return of income for A.Y. 2010-11. As per AIR information, the assessee deposited cash totaling to Rs.20,06,900/- in the saving bank account lying with the Bank of Baroda, Chhani Branch, Baroda on several dates during the F.Y. 2009-10. The case was re-opened under a notice dated 08.02.2013 u/s 148 of the Act pursuant to

- 2 - ITA Nos.2123/Ahd/2016 Pravinsinh Udaysinh Vaghela Asst.Year – 2010-11 which return of income was filed on 26.04.2013 through the electronic media declaring total income at Rs. Nil and agricultural income of Rs.4,61,867/-. Certain details in support of his return of income was asked for on 16.05.2013, details including copy of ITR-V for e-return, computation of total return, copy of bank account with Bank of Baroda, details of debit and credit entries in the bank account, copies of documents of assessee’s purchased land during the F.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 were filed by the assessee before the Learned AO. The matter being transferred to other jurisdiction wherein a fresh notice u/s 142(2) dated 19.02.2014 was served asking for certain details when the assessee neither appeared nor filed any documents in support of his return of income. The assessment was finalized ex-parte, Rs. 4,61,867/- has been added as bogus agricultural income and Rs.20,06,900/- has been added on account of undisclosed cash deposited in the bank account. In appeal, the assessee submitted before the Learned CIT(A) that such income was earned by the HUF which was erroneously added to the total income of the assessee. The bank details were given before the Assessing Officer in order to prove that the agricultural land were inherited from forefathers. Even investment being the fixed deposits were also in the joint name which is evident from cheques issued from saving bank account with the bank of Baroda. According to the assessee the income has wrongly assessed in the personnel capacity of the assessee instead in the name of Karta of Pravinsinh U. Vaghela (HUF). The details of saving bank account, bank statement, land details were also furnished by the assessee before the first appellate authority. The document being the sale deed of land purchased by assessee and the family members, copies of fertilizer bills, copies of labour bills/vouchers, electricity bills, sale bills for sale of agriculture produce certificates issued by Talati and Sarpanch were not taking into consideration by the Learned CIT(A) in view of the particular facts that the same were not produced before the Learned AO pursuant to the notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 08.02.2013, hence rejected.

- 3 - ITA Nos.2123/Ahd/2016 Pravinsinh Udaysinh Vaghela Asst.Year – 2010-11 3. At the time of hearing of the instant appeal, the Learned Advocate appearing for the assessee submitted before us that the documents which were produced before the Learned CIT(A) ought to have been accepted keeping in view the fact that though late but the assessee tried his best to substantiate its claim by furnishing the documents before the authorities below. The Learned CIT(A), according to the Learned AR ought to have asked for a remand report on the basis of such documents so as to adjudicate the matter in its proper prospective. The assessee, therefore, has not been provided with the opportunity of being heard by the Learned CIT(A) in appellate proceeding causing immense hardship to the assessee.

4.

Having heard the Learned Counsel appearing for the parties, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we find it fit and proper for the ends of justice to give a further opportunity of hearing to the assessee. We thus remit the issue to the file of the Learned AO for considering the matter afresh upon giving a reasonable hearing to the assessee and also take into consideration the evidences so placed before the first appellate authority or any other evidences which the assessee may choose to file at the time of hearing of the matter. We, however, make it clear that the assessee would also co-operate with the authorities below without asking for any unnecessary adjournment.

5.

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 01/04/2019

Sd/- Sd/- ( PRAMOD KUMAR ) ( Ms. MADHUMITA ROY ) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 01/04/2019 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS

- 4 - ITA Nos.2123/Ahd/2016 Pravinsinh Udaysinh Vaghela Asst.Year – 2010-11

आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-5, Vadodara. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 5. 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स�या�पत ��त //True Copy// उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad

1.

Date of dictation 01/04/2019 (Dictation Pages 4) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member 01/04/2019 3. Other Member… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S …01/04/2019 5. Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement… 6. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S……. 7. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk………………… 8. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk……………………… 9. The date on which the file goes to the Assistant Registrar for signature on the order…………………….. 10. Date of Despatch of the Order………………

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →