Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH:: NAGPUR
(A.Y. 2013-14) ITO, Ward-3, Amravari vs Vivek Ramesh Matkar, A-103, Cosmos Regency, Behind Orchid School, Balewadi Phata, Baner Road, Pune-411 045 PAN: ALMPM 5626 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Abhay Y. Marathe, Sr.DR Date of hearing : 21/11/2023 Date of pronouncement : 22/11/2023 ORDER Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM:
This appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals]-1, Nagpur (for short, ‘CIT(A)’), dated 12.12.2018 for A.Y.2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record.
At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee. The submissions of the ld.DR and the materials/documents on record were considered and the case was heard on merits.
The relevant facts are that, assessee is an individual, deriving
Vivek Ramesh Matkar income from supplying of software under the name and style as Purestudy. Return was filed on 24/09/2014 declaring total income of Rs.1,74,920/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and the assessment was completed by making addition of Rs. 1,82,45,633/- as unexplained investment. It is the case of the assessee that he had filed his return for the first time by offering nominal income of Rs.1,74,920/-. Apparently, for the purpose of obtaining loan facilities and to invite investments for his new venture, the assessee appointed CA for preparing project report. The CA had made a project report, however, while filing the ITR, the CA inadvertently entered the figures of the project report in the balance sheet and filed the return with high opening capital balance, and against it, an almost equal amount of assets which were just the figures of project report. The AO considered this capital gain of Rs. 1,82,45,633/- as unexplained and added the same as unexplained investment u/sec. 69 of the Act.
That, when the matter went up before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee had filed a detailed written submissions. The ld. CIT(A) after considering the said written submissions of the assessee and the assessment order, provided relief to the assessee as per findings as emanating from the order of the ld. CIT(A). We observe from paras 6.2, 6.3 & 6.4 of the ld. CIT(A)’s order that she has dismissed the contentions raised in the assessment order by the AO, but has not conducted any independent verification on such issues as pointed out
Vivek Ramesh Matkar by the AO in the assessment order. When the power of the ld. CIT(A) is co-terminus with that of the AO, it was also mandatory for the quasi judicial authority to come out with a speaking order conducting independent enquiry to see whether sec. 69 is attracted with regard to undisclosed investment as alleged by the AO in the assessment order. There has been no verification and examination of facts conducted by the ld. CIT(A) and without this exercise, she has simply dismissed the facts brought out in the assessment order. We are of the considered view, in the interest of justice, that the ld. CIT(A) should conduct independent verification and examination of facts and come out with a speaking order as per law. In view thereof, we set aside the order of the ld. CIT(A) and remand the matter back to her file to adjudicate as per law complying with the principles of natural justice and after conducting necessary enquiry, should pass a speaking order. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in open Court on 22nd November, 2023.