Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Parbatsinh Bhagwansinh Dodiya, , ... vs Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3),, ... on 22 November, 2016
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "SMC" BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 2710/Ahd/2013 िनधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Parbatsinh Bhagwansinh Dodiya, Income-tax Officer, Near High School, Ramnagar, Vs Ward 2 (3), Budhel, Dist: Bhavnagar Bhavnagar PAN : AHPPD 0684 H अपीलाथ / अपीलाथ (Appellant) यथ यथ / थ (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Vimal I. Mehta, Sr. DR सुनवाई क तारीख/ Date of Hearing : 22/11/2016 घोषणा क तारीख / Date of Pronouncement: 22/11/2016 आदेश/O R D E R This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-XX, Ahmedabad dated 30.09.2013 for Assessment Year 2010-11.
2. Following grounds are raised:-
1. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not admitting additional evidences under Rule 46A.
2. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in confirming addition of Rs.46,76,060/- equivalent to the amount of cash deposited in the Axis Bank account.
3. None appeared for the assessee at the time of hearing. The issue being small, the appeal is decided ex-parte qua the assessee, after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the material available on record.
4. The brief facts are - the assessee is a transporter who has filed his return of income u/s 44AE of the Act which is evident from the following observation of the Assessing Officer:-
"2. In response to the above notices, authorized representative Shri Khudubhai B. Gohil, ITP from K.Dave & Co. of the assessee, attended on SMC-ITA No.2710/Ahd/2013 Parbatsinh Bhagwansinh Dodiya vs. ITO AY : 2010-11 2 behalf of the assessee from time to time, and furnished the details called for. The assessee is engaged in the business of transportation, Commission and Interest Income. During the year under consideration, the assessee has shown receipts u/s 44AE of Rs.84,000/- from plying of trucks and income from partnership firm."
4.1 Thus, the assessee had offered his income on the basis of presumptive taxation and not on the basis of books of accounts. The assessee produced his bank account and there were cash deposits in the account, which, according to assessee, were transport receipts. It appears that the assessee could not produce bank account and other details for explaining the cash deposits being business receipts. The ld. AO, though accepted assessee's return u/s 44AE, however, made the above addition u/s 69 of the Act.
5. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred First Appeal, where detailed explanation was filed and further documents were produced. The assessee filed evidence from bank. The assessee contended that, being a transporter, he was totally relied on his tax consultant who filed the documents according to his wisdom. Since the evidence goes to the root of the issue, the same should be admitted. Ld. CIT(A), however, refused to admit the same and dismissed the appeal.
6. Ld. Departmental Representative is heard, who has supported the orders of the authorities below.
7. I have heard the ld. DR, perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It merges from the record that the assessee has filed return u/s 44AE of the Act on the presumptive income, which has been admitted. In my considered view, the assessee's explanation that the cash deposits in the bank account were transport receipts has not been effectively disbelieved. The assessee is a transporter and from the Assessing Officer's observation, it does not appear that he SMC-ITA No.2710/Ahd/2013 Parbatsinh Bhagwansinh Dodiya vs. ITO AY : 2010-11 3 maintained regular books of accounts under the impression that income-tax is leviable on him on the basis of presumptive rate of tax. If the assessee was not maintaining books of accounts, then the AO's observation in paragraph 4 of the assessment order that the assessee did not produce cash books becomes questionable. Besides, it has been held that if the assessee is working under professional guidance, the mistake of the professional cannot be a reason to punish the assessee. In the entirety of facts and circumstances, the ld. CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidences; more so, when the assessee seems to be a transporter not well versed with technicalities and books of accounts and files his return on summary basis on presumptive taxation u/s 44AE of the Act. In my considered view, ends of justice will be served if the assessment is set aside and restored back to the file of Assessing Officer to decide the same de novo after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard.
8. In the result, the assessee's appeal is allowed on above terms.
Order pronounced in the Court on 22nd November, 2016 at Ahmedabad.
Sd/-
R.P. TOLANI
(JUDICIAL MEMBER)
Ahmedabad; Dated 22/11/2016
*Biju T., Sr. PS
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant
2.
यथ / The Respondent.
3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु / Concerned CIT
4. आयकर आयु (अपील) / The CIT(A)
5. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad
6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.
आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, TRUE COPY उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad