Gaurav Girdharilal Kherajani, Surat vs Assessee

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL " B " BENCH, AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA Kr. YADAV, J.M. & SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, A.M.)

I.T. A. No. 3086/AHD/2011 (Assessment Year: 2008-09)

Shri Gaurav Girhdarilal V/S The Deputy Commissioner of Kherajani, Prop. of Tarana Income-Tax, Circle-5, Surat. Fashion, 520, Mahalaxmi Market, Ring Road, Surat.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

PAN: AIIPK0115G

Appellant by : Shri M.K. Patel, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Roop Chand, Sr. D.R.

(आदे श)/ORDER

Date of hearing : 09-04-2015 Date of Pronouncement : 17 -04-2015

PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI,A.M.

1. This appeal filed by the Assessee is against the order of CIT(A)-I, Surat dated 28.09.2011 for A.Y. 2008-09.

2. The relevant facts as culled out from the material on record are as under.

3. Assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in the business of trading of

Art Silk Cloth in the name and style of Tarana Fashion. Assessee electronically filed his return of income for A.Y. 2008-09 on 30.09.2008 2 ITA No 3086/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008-09 declaring total income of Rs. 4,53,208/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed under section 143(3) vide order dated 06.09.2010 and the total income was determined at Rs. 7,95,580/-. Aggrieved by the order of A.O., Assessee carried the matter before ld. CIT(A) who vide order dated 28.09.2011 granted partial relief to the Assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of ld. CIT(A), Assessee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds;-

1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.2,86,600/- on account of unexplained investment U/S.69B of the Act, 1961.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in restricting 10% disallowance of total general Expenses and Staff welfare expenses.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned commissioner of the Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the assessing officer in making addition of Rs.24,133/- on account of 20% disallowance of total vehicle expenses.

4. It is therefore prayed that the above addition may please be deleted as learned members of the tribunal may deem it proper.

5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of the hearing of the appeal.

4. Before us, at the outset ld. A.R. submitted that ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex parte order and in the absence of any representation has upheld the order of A.O. He therefore submitted that one more opportunity be granted to the Assessee to present its case before ld. CIT(A) and also submitted and gave an undertaking that Assessee will suo motu appear before ld. CIT(A). Ld. 3 ITA No 3086/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008-09 D.R. on the other hand supported the order of A.O and further submitted that Assessee has not brought on record any justification for non appearance before ld. CIT(A) and the tendency of the Assessee of not appearing before ld. CIT(A) and subsequently pleading before Hon'ble ITAT for a second inning to present its case before ld. CIT(A) should not be considered favorably. He thus supported the order of A.O and ld. CIT(A).

5. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that before ld. CIT(A) neither Assessee appeared nor was the Assessee represented be any Authorized Representative and thus an ex parte order was passed by ld. CIT(A). We also find that ld. CIT(A) has in the absence of any representation from the side of Assessee by a cryptic order mainly upheld the additions made by A.O During the course of hearing a specific query was raised by the Bench to the A.R to explain the reasons as to why there was no representation before ld. CIT(A) to which ld. A.R. could not give any satisfactorily explanation or justification. Considering the aforesaid facts, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the Assessee be granted one more opportunity to present his case before ld. CIT(A) but at the same time apathy of the Assessee towards the proceedings before lower Authorities without any reasonable cause also cannot be encouraged. So in the interest of justice, we set aside the order of ld. CIT(A) to his file with direction to decide the issues in accordance with law and after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the Assessee and subject to the Assessee making a payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- in the legal aid. Further we also direct the Assessee to suo motu appear before ld. CIT(A) within 1 month from the date of the order of the Tribunal for receiving the date of hearing. In view of our decision to restore to the issues to the file of ld. CIT(A), we are not 4 ITA No 3086/AHD/2011 . A.Y. 2008-09 adjudicating on merits the other grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee. In the result, the grounds of Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

6. In the result, the appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in Open Court on 17 - 04 - 2015.

Sd/- Sd/- SHAILENDRA Kr. YADAV) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad. TRUE COPY Rajesh

Copy of the Order forwarded to:- 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT (Appeals) - 4. The CIT concerned. 5. The DR., ITAT, Ahmedabad. 6. Guard File. By ORDER

Deputy/Asstt.Registrar ITAT,Ahmedabad