Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Ahmedabad
Saket Corporation, Baroda vs Department Of Income Tax on 20 March, 2012
1 ITA No.1464/AHD/2009 with
C.O. No.109/AHD/2009
Assessment Year 2006-07
.
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B "BENCH, AHMEDABAD
(BEFORE SHRI G.C.GUPTA V. P. & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M.)
I.T.A. No. 1464/AHD/2009
(Assessment Year: 2006- 07 )
Income Tax Officer, Vs. M/s. Saket Corporation,
Ward 5(1), A-25/116, Krishna Indl Estate,
Aayakar Bhavan, G.I.D.C., Gorwa,
Race Course, Baroda.
Baroda.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
C.O. NO.109/AHD/2009
(Arising out of I.T.A. No. 1464/AHD/2009 )
(Assessment Year: 2006- 07 )
M/s. Saket Corporation, Vs. Income Tax Officer,
A-25/116, Krishna Indl Estate, Ward 5(1),
G.I.D.C., Gorwa, Aayakar Bhavan,
Baroda. Race Course,
Baroda.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
PAN: ABDFS 9216Q
Appellant by : Shri Samir Tekriwal, Sr. D.R.
Respondent by : Shri Anil R. Shah.
आदे श)/ORDER
(आदे 2 ITA No.1464/AHD/2009 with C.O. No.109/AHD/2009 Assessment Year 2006-07 .
Date of hearing : 20-3-2012 Date of Pronouncement : 4-4-2012 PER: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M.
This appeal is filed by the Revenue, directed against the order CIT (A)-V, Baroda dated 5-2-2009 for the Assessment Year 2006-07.
2. The only effective ground taken by the Revenue is as under:-
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- made on account of unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the I.T. Act in mutual fund. (The issue is not covered u/s. 80IB (10) as wrongly stated by CIT (A) in the first para of his order.)."
3. The grounds raised by the assessee in C.O. are as under:-
"1. The appeal filed by the ITO against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) requires to be dismissed since the addition made in the assessment order was not u/s. 69 and the relief given by the CIT (A) is also not u/s.69 and therefore, the ground of appeal taken by the ITO before the Hon'ble Tribunal is infructuous and requires to be cancelled.
2. Without prejudice your appellant submits that the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly held that Rs.11,00,000/- invested in Mutual Funds is duly supported by evidence and is not liable to be included in the total income of the Respondent.3 ITA No.1464/AHD/2009 with C.O. No.109/AHD/2009
Assessment Year 2006-07 .
3. The Ld. CIT (A) rightly held that the ITO had not given sufficient and proper opportunity to produce evidence in support of the contention of the Respondent and that it was for good and valid reasons that the Ld. CIT (A) keeping in mind the facts of the case took on record evidence which was also otherwise available on the file of the ITO based on which he rightly deleted the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- made by the ITO.
4. In view of the above facts and circumstances relief claimed by the Respondent be allowed and the appeal filed by the ITO be dismissed."
4 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm engaged in the business of developing of housing residential units. The return of income for the year ended 2006 i.e. for the Assessment Year 2006-07 was filed on 22-12-2006 declaring total income at Rs. Nil. The case was selected for scrutiny and the assessment was finalized on 10-10-2008 by making an addition of Rs.11 lakhs as unexplained investment and the total income was accordingly determined at Rs.11 lakhs. Aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). Before the CIT (A) the assessee contended that the A.O. did not give sufficient time to explain the matter and the order u/s. 143(3) was passed without giving proper opportunity and thereby violating the principles of natural justice. CIT (A) in his order accepted the fact that Assessing Officer had violated the principles of natural justice and should have considered the submission made by the Assessee. He was of the view that the Assessing Officer should have given one more opportunity to explain 4 ITA No.1464/AHD/2009 with C.O. No.109/AHD/2009 Assessment Year 2006-07 .
the matter. CIT (A) further, on the basis of submission and details filed before him concluded that the investment of Rs.11 lakhs made in Mutual fund was fully explained and therefore deleted the addition. The Revenue is now in appeal before us and the assessee has also filed Cross objection.
5. Before us the Ld. DR pointed out that the CIT (A) has not discussed the issue on merits before granting relief. He further urged that the supporting evidence relied upon by CIT (A) should have been made available to A.O. for examination. He therefore, urged that the matter be set aside to the file of A.O. for verification of all the facts and necessary directions. The A.R. did not seriously objected to the plea of Ld. D.R.
6. We have heard both the parties, perused the details filed. It is an admitted fact that the evidence furnished by assessee before CIT (A) has not been verified by A.O. We are of the view, that when the A.O. did not examine the relevant evidence, then in the interest of justice and fair play it is necessary that verification and examination of the evidence is done at the level of A.O. Therefore, we are of the view that the issue be set aside to the file of A.O. for verification and examination of the relevant evidence to be produced by the assessee and thereafter decide the issue as per law. The A.O. shall allow adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
5 ITA No.1464/AHD/2009 with C.O. No.109/AHD/2009Assessment Year 2006-07 .
7. Since the appeal of the Revenue is remitted back to the file of the Assessing Officer the cross objection filed by the Assessee do not require adjudication.
8. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is allowed for statistical purposes and cross objection of the assessee is dismissed.
Order pronounced in Open Court on 4 - 4 - 2012.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G.C.GUPTA) (ANIL CHATURVEDI)
VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Ahmedabad.
S.A.Patki.
Copy of the Order forwarded to:-
1. The Appellant.
2. The Respondent.
3. The CIT (Appeals) -V, Baroda.
4. The CIT concerned.
5. The DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad.
6. Guard File.
By ORDER
Deputy/Asstt.Registrar
ITAT,Ahmedabad.
6 ITA No.1464/AHD/2009 with
C.O. No.109/AHD/2009
Assessment Year 2006-07
.
1.Date of dictation 20 - 3 -2012
2.Date on which the typed draft is placed before the Dictating 30 / 3 / 2012 Member................Other Member................
3.Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr.P.S./P.S 4 - 4 -2012.
4.Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement 4 - 4 -2012
5.Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr.P.S./P.S 4 - 4 -2012
6.Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 4 - 4 -2012.
7.Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk.............
8.The date on which the file goes to the Asstt. Registrar for signature on the order........................
9.Date of Despatch of the Order.................