Saumyasanta Chaudhari v. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 7, Pune
[Citation -2019-LL-0930-32]

Citation 2019-LL-0930-32
Appellant Name Saumyasanta Chaudhari
Respondent Name The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle – 7, Pune
Court ITAT-Pune
Relevant Act Income-tax
Date of Order 30/09/2019
Assessment Year 2011-12
Judgment View Judgment
Keyword Tags ex-parte order • dividend income • bank deposit • deemed income • tds credit • non-compliance • interest of justice and fair play • adequate opportunity
Bot Summary: The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under :- Assessee is an individual stating to have income from salary, house property and other sources. Assessee filed his return of 2 income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 29-07-2011 declaring total income at Rs.26,96,410/-. Ld. D.R. on the other hand, submitted that there was total non-compliance by the assessee before AO and Ld. CIT(A) and in such a situation, there was no other option left to them but to pass an ex-parte order. CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss the appeal of the assessee without going into the merits of the issue before him. CIT(A) should have decided the grounds of appeal of the assessee on merits thereof. In view of my decision to restore the issue back to the file of CIT(A), I am not adjudicating on merits the other grounds of the appeal raised by the assessee. In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.


IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC , PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM ITA No.1165/PUN/2019 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Shri Saumyasanta Chaudhari, C/O CA Sudhir Paithankar, Appellant Office No. 205, Bharat Bhavan, 1360 Shukrawar Peth, Bajirao Road, Pune 411002 PAN : AAPPC7614K v/s Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Respondent Circle 7, Pune Assessee by : Ms. M.N. Kulkarni Revenue by : Shri Chandra Bhanu Mandal // Date of Hearing : 30.09.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 30.09.2019 ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. This appeal filed by assessee is against order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 8, Pune for assessment year 2011-12. 2. relevant facts as culled out from material on record are as under :- Assessee is individual stating to have income from salary, house property and other sources. Assessee filed his return of 2 income for A.Y. 2011-12 on 29-07-2011 declaring total income at Rs.26,96,410/-. case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter assessment was framed u/s 143(3) of Act vide order dated 08-03-2014 and total income was determined at Rs.49,14,725/-. Aggrieved by order of AO, assessee carried matter before Ld.CIT(A), who vide order dated 20-05-2019 (in appeal No.PN/CIT(A)- 8/DCIT, Cir-7/517/18-19) dismissed appeal of assessee. Aggrieved by order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal and has raised following grounds : 1. CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions made by Assessing Officer and passing ex Parte Order. 2. CIT(A) has erred in confirming dividend income claimed exempt in return, as income u/s. 68 of Act. Appellant prays to delete same. 3. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition for alleged Bank Deposit with State Bank of Mysore of Rs.12,73,560/- as income u/s. 68. Also CIT(A) failed to call Bank Statement, which Assessing Officer has Called from Bank. 4. Without prejudice to ground No. 2 and 3, CIT(A) has failed to consider that provisions of Sec. 68 are not applicable to same. 5. CIT(A) has erred and failed confirm estimate of deemed Income of Rs.1,76,250/- and thereby making addition of Rs.1,23,315/-. All addition may please be cancelled as Assessee has offered in Return. 6. Without prejudice to ground No. 5 above, lower authorities have erred in even not deducting income of Rs.3750/- offered in return, while making addition. 7. CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs.4,57,840/- on account of receipt of ITL employees Super Annuation Fund Trust. Appellant prays to delete same. 8. Without prejudice to Ground No. 7, CIT(A) has failed to direct Assessing Officer to at least give TDS credit on same. 9. CIT(A) has erred in not being Just and Fair, at least calling file from Assessing Officer and looking into submissions made by assessee, or obtained by him and making double additions. 10. Appellant prays to add, amend, take additional ground/s and/or without ground/s, during appeal proceedings. Appellant prays to allow same. 3 3. Before me, at outset, Ld. A.R. submitted that CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order without deciding issue on merits. She submitted that assessee could not appear before CIT(A) as notice was not served upon assessee and Postman wrongly stated that assessee has left premises. She submitted that there is no change in address as CIT(A) s order was received by assessee at same address. She therefore submitted that one more opportunity be granted to assessee to present his case before lower authorities and further submitted that she undertakes on behalf of assessee that assessee will fully co- operate and appear before lower authorities. Ld. D.R. on other hand, submitted that there was total non-compliance by assessee before AO and Ld. CIT(A) and in such situation, there was no other option left to them but to pass ex-parte order. He thus supported order of lower authorities. 4. I have heard rival submissions and perused material on record. I find that in present case, order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is ex-parte order wherein he has dismissed appeal of assessee without going into merits of case. It is settled law that ld. CIT(A) has no jurisdiction to dismiss appeal of assessee without going into merits of issue before him. Even in ex parte order, ld. CIT(A) should have decided grounds of appeal of assessee on merits thereof. Considering aforesaid facts, I am of view that in interest of justice and fair play, assessee be given one more opportunity to present his case. I therefore remit issue back to file of CIT(A) for him to decide issue afresh on merits and in accordance with law. Needless to 4 state that CIT(A) shall grant adequate opportunity of hearing to both parties. Assessee is also directed to promptly furnish details called for by authorities. In case, assessee fails to furnish required details, authorities shall be free to decide issue based on material on record. In view of my decision to restore issue back to file of CIT(A), I am not adjudicating on merits other grounds of appeal raised by assessee. Thus, grounds of assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In result, appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 30th day of September, 2019. Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Pune; Dated : 30th September, 2019. RK /Copy of Order forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT (A)-8, Pune 4. Pr.CIT-4, Pune 5 , DR, ITAT, SMC Pune; 6. Guard file. BY ORDER // True Copy // Private Secretary , ITAT, Pune. Saumyasanta Chaudhari v. Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle 7, Pune
Report Error