Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “ SMC ” BENCH, AHMEDABAD loZJh egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa vejthr flag] ys[kk lnL; ds le{kA loZJh egkohj izlkn] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa vejthr flag]
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH
आदेश / O R D E R
PER SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER :
This is an appeal by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad, dated 22/08/2014 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2006-07, on the following Grounds: The order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Gandhinagar [CIT(A)] is bad in law as well on facts on the following grounds; (i) Learned CIT(A) has erred in not adjudicating grounds of appeal No.1 & 2 against reopen of assessment u/s.147 and assessment u/s.144 of the Act.
ITA No.11/Ahd/2015 Jitendrakumar Prabhudas Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2006-07 - 2 - a. Learned A.O. has erred in reopening assessment u/s.147 of the Act. b. Order of A.O. u/s.144 is without detail inquiry and verification of facts. (ii) The learned CIT(A)has erred in confirming the addition made by A.O. of Rs.7,56,000/- as unexplained cash deposited in saving bank account with Mahindra Bank Ltd., Unjha, In as much as, a. The A.O. has not decided the case on merits and facts of the case. b. The A.O. has passed the order without detail inquiry of the case though A.O. had sufficient time up to 31/03/2014. c. The Bank A/c. is name of 3 joint holders and other joint holders transactions are also added. (ii) The learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the interest charged u/s. 234A, 234B & 234C by A.O. of I.T. Act,1961. (iii) The assessee craves for liberty to amend, modify and add any grounds of appeal or furnish additional evidences.
The relevant facts as culled out from the materials on record are as under:- In this case, AO through the Annual information Return, (AIR) noticed that appellant has made cash deposits of Rs.10,06,000/- in his bank account with Kotal Mahindra Bank Ltd, Unjha. The case was, therefore, re-opened on the based of above information. The AO issued various notices and questionnaires to the appellant which the appellant failed to respond. Therefore, the assessment is finalized u/s.144 of the Act.
ITA No.11/Ahd/2015 Jitendrakumar Prabhudas Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2006-07 - 3 - 2.2 With regard to the addition made on account of unexplained cash credits, bank statement of account No.08160140007694 held with Kotal Mahindra Bank Ltd., Unjha was obtained by the AO by issuing letter u/s.133(6) of the Act. From the statement, the AO perused that there was total deposit of Rs.10,06,000/- and withdrawals totaled to Rs.2,50,000/-.
2.3 The AO has held that the appellant is not eligible for relief of peak amount as there was continuous deposit in the bank account upto 05/10/2005 and thereafter, cash withdrawals of Rs.2,35,000/- is adjusted against the cash deposits of Rs,10,06,000/-. He therefore, worked out the unexplained cash deposits at Rs.7,56,000/-, considering the withdrawals of Rs.2,50,000/-. The amount of Rs.7,56,000/- and interest income of Rs.402/- totaling to Rs.7,56,400/- is added it to the total income as unexplained cash deposits.
Thereafter, assessee preferred first statutory appeal before the ld. CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Now appellant’s appeal is before us.
We have heard the rival submissions and gone through the relevant record. Assessee filed an application for condone of Delay supported by affidavit. We are convinced that assessee has given the valid and reasonable grounds to condone the delay. Hence, we condone the delay of 150 days.
ITA No.11/Ahd/2015 Jitendrakumar Prabhudas Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2006-07 - 4 - 5.2 Assessee’s main grievance appears to be that Assessing Officer has passed ex-parte order and he has not been heard properly by the CIT(A) as well and his grievance also that he filed additional evidences before the ld. CIT(A), which were not considered.
We are of the considered opinion that in the interest of the justice, assessee should be given one more chance to defend his case.
Therefore, in the interest of the justice, we set aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and remit back this matter to the file of the AO who will decide this matter afresh after providing opportunity to the assessee and appellant is also directed to file all the papers in support of his contention before the learned AO.
In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.
This Order pronounced in Open Court on 27/09/2017
Sd/- Sd/- vejthr flag vejthr flag vejthr flag महावीर �साद vejthr flag (लेखा सद�य) (�या�यक सद�य) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( AMARJIT SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 27/09/2017 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS
ITA No.11/Ahd/2015 Jitendrakumar Prabhudas Patel vs. ITO Asst.Year –2006-07 - 5 -
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)-Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad. �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 True Copy 1. Date of dictation 22/09/2017 (dictation-pad 4 pages attached at the end of this appeal-file) 2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating Member …26/09/2017 3. Other Member… 4. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S…………….. 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………………