Jatin Rameshchandra Naik, Navsari vs Assessee

This is the assessee's appeal against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Valsad dated 18-11-2009 for A.Y. 2006-07.

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

I.T.A No. 2321/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 2 Shri Jatin Rameshchandra Naik Proprietor of Palash Petroleum vs. ITO

3. Assessee is an individual stated to be engaged in re-sale of petroleum products. Assessee filed its return of income for A.Y. 2006-07 on 26-12-2006 declaring total income of Rs. 85,767/- and the agricultural income of Rs. 1,78,700/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and thereafter the assessment was framed u/s. 143(3) vide order dated 26-12- 2008 and the total income was determined at Rs. 63,35,460/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, Assessee carried the matter before CIT(A) who vide order dated 18/11/2009 granted partial relief to the assessee. Aggrieved by the aforesaid order of CIT(A), Asssesee is now in appeal before us and has raised the following grounds:-

"1) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well us law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer rejecting books of accounts by invoking provisions of sec.l45(3) of the Act.

2) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the observation of the AO that the appellant had inflated the agricultural income. The CIT(A) has erred in estimating that the appellant had earned agricultural income of Rs. 1,00,000/- as against the returned agricultural income of Rs.1,78,700/-.

3) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition to the extent of Rs.8,90,000/- as against the addition made by the AO at Rs 11,90,000/-by invoking provision of sec.68.

4) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the partial additions made by the AO on account of alleged difference in closing balance of sundry creditors.

5) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition made by the AO on presumption of Rs.48,27,625/- as unaccounted investments.

6) On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the additions confirmed by the learned CIT(A) is without giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant and without considering the submission made before him.

I.T.A No. 2321/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 3 Shri Jatin Rameshchandra Naik Proprietor of Palash Petroleum vs. ITO

7) The learned CIT(A) has not considered the written submission as well as paper book filed before him with evidences and proofs to support the various contentions raised in appeal.

8) For various reason and on different grounds, the additions made by the AO and upheld by the Learned CIT(appeals), Valsad, deserves to be deleted."

4. Registry has informed that there has been delay of 517 days in filing the appeal. Assessee has filed a condonation application and also filed an affidavit wherein the reasons for delay in filing the appeal have been stated. The reason inter alia states that the delay was on account of ill health of the parents of the assessee and of the assessee himself. Considering the averments made by the assessee in the affidavit, we are of the view that there has been reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for delay in filing the appeal, we therefore condone the delay and admit the appeal.

5. Before us, at the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that before CIT(A), assessee could not appear and therefore an ex-parte order has been passed by CIT(A). He therefore submitted that assessee be granted one more opportunity to present the case before Ld. CIT(A) and further gave an undertaking to appear suo moto before Ld. CIT(A). Ld. DR on the other hand submitted that despite various opportunities granted to Assessee none had appeared before CIT(A) and further CIT(A) had decided the appeal on merits and has also granted relief on some of the issues. He therefore objected to the second innings sought by Ld. AR.

6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We find that against the returned income of Rs. 85,767/- filed by the assessee, AO has determined the taxable income at Rs. 63,35,460/-. Further considering the fact that the assessee and his parents were not I.T.A No. 2321/Ahd/2011 A.Y. 2006-07 Page No 4 Shri Jatin Rameshchandra Naik Proprietor of Palash Petroleum vs. ITO keeping good health and in view of the fact that the order passed by CIT(A) is ex-parte order and further taking into consideration the undertaking given by Ld. AR to cooperate and appear before Ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that in the interest of justice one more opportunity be granted to the assessee. We therefore restore the issue back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to decide the issue afresh on merits and after considering the submissions and details filed by the assessee and thereafter decide the appeal in accordance with law. We also direct the assessee to appear suo moto before Ld. CIT(A) within 30 days from the passing of the order and seek the date of hearing from Ld. CIT(A). Since the matter has been remitted back to CIT(A), we have not decided the other grounds raised by Assessee on merits. In the result, the grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

7. Thus, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in open court on the date mentioned hereinabove at caption page

Sd/- Sd/-

(MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (ANIL CHATURVEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad : Dated 20/03/2015 ak

आदे श क ूितिल प अमे षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:-

1. Assessee

2. Revenue

3. Concerned CIT

4. CIT (A)

5. DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6. Guard file.

By order/आदे श से, उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद