Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Jaipur
Azad Hussain , Jaipur vs Assessee on 20 November, 2015
vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj U;k;ihB] t;iqj
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR
Jh Vh-vkj-ehuk] ys[kk lnL; ,oa Jh yfyr dqekj] U;kf;d lnL; ds le{k
BEFORE:SHRI T.R. MEENA,AM & SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JM
vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No.560/JP/2013
fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2009-10
Shri Azad Hussain cuke The ITO
C-63, Thathar Colony Vs. Ward- 7 (3)
Near Anand Public School Jaipur
Amer, Jaipur
LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABEPH 4389 L
vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent
fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Sadaf Raies, CA
jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Raj Mehra , JCIT - DR
lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 30/10/2015
?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 20 /11/2015
vkns'k@ ORDER
PER T.R. MEENA, AM
The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-III, Jaipur dated 21-11-2012 for the assessment year 2009-10 raising therein following grounds in his appeal.
''1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 23,18,477/- by AO treating the credit in the bank account as undisclosed income without affording proper opportunity of being heard.
2 ITA No. 560/JP/2013
Shri Azad Hussain vs. ITO Ward- 7(3),Jaipur .
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 94,572/- by increasing the net profit declared by the assessee.'' 2.1 The appeal is delayed by 97 days for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay alongwith an affidavit explaining that the delay is not caused by assessee's default but it was due to wrong delivery of ld. CIT(A)'s order dated 27-11-2012 to somebody else in the locality of the assessee who later on handed over the same on 16-04- 2013 to the assessee. The assessee submitted that this delay was not intentional but it was beyond the control of the assessee. Therefore, he could not file the appeal in time. Thus the assessee prayed for condonation of delay in filing the appeal.
2.2 The ld. DR is heard on condonation.
2.3 After hearing both the parties, we are of the view that the delay in filing appeal is not attributable to the assessee who was prevented by sufficient reasons. Therefore, the same is condoned in the interest of justice.
3.1 Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income on 5-09-2009 declaring income of Rs. 2,35,440/- for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee in his return had shown a net profit of Rs. 4,05,428/ on total receipt of Rs. 36,54,828/-. There were total 3 ITA No. 560/JP/2013 Shri Azad Hussain vs. ITO Ward- 7(3),Jaipur .
deposits of Rs. 23,18,447/- in the ICICI Bank Account maintained by the assessee. The same has been added by the AO to the total income of the assessee treating it as his undisclosed income. However, the AO finally worked out total income of the assessee in his ex-parte assessment order amounting to Rs. 28,19,040/- u/s 144 of the Act as the assessee had not furnished any explanation on the notices issued by the AO. 3.2 The ld. CIT(A) ex-parte confirmed the order of the AO in spite of providing various opportunities to the assessee . 3.3 During the course of hearing before us, the ld. AR of the assessee prayed that the assessee is engaged in the business of trading in various types of scraps during the year. The industry in which the assessee deals with is of kind in which all the transactions are carried out in cash and all the purchasers prefer cash mode transaction only. Hence, the sale effected by the assessee during the year was credited in his bank account and has been duly taken into consideration while furnishing his return of income. The assessee has duly shown gross receipts of Rs. 36,54,828/- and declared a net profit of Rs. 4,05,428/- out of it, which is quite higher than as shown by other scrap dealers. The figures of net profit were derived out only after considering all the necessary expenditures which was incurred in the interest of the business. Hence, treating the cash deposit of Rs. 23,18,447/- in the bank account of the assessee as his undisclosed 4 ITA No. 560/JP/2013 Shri Azad Hussain vs. ITO Ward- 7(3),Jaipur .
income without any cogent reason is purely illogical and needs to be deleted in full. The assessee submitted that notices were duly served to the assessee but the time notices were served to the assessee and assessment was carried out by the AO and CIT (A) he was residing in Gurgaon for carrying out some business activities. The assessee submitted that due to his personal and religious activities he could not comply with the notices and further prayed that his assessment is not done in a proper manner and matter may be remanded back to the AO so that all the relevant information and documents could be produced before him for de novo assessment.
3.4 The ld. DR relied on the orders of the lower authorities and objected to the contentions of the ld. AR of the assessee. 3.5 We have heard the rival contentions and perused the materials available on record. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case and adopting the method of principle of natural justice, we restore the matter back to the file of the AO for denovo assessment by providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The assessee is directed to remain present at the time of assessment for providing necessary details / records and cooperate with the AO for completion of the assessment.
5 ITA No. 560/JP/2013
Shri Azad Hussain vs. ITO Ward- 7(3),Jaipur .
40. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 20/11/2015.
Sd/- Sd/- (Laliet Kumar) (T.R. Meena) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@ Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 20 /11/2015 *Mishra
vkns'k dh izfrfyfi vxzfs 'kr@Copy of the order forwarded to:
1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Azad Hussain, Jaipur
2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The ITO, Ward- 7 (3), Jaipur
3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@ CIT(A).
4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT,
5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur
6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 560/JP/2013) vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@ Assistant. Registrar