M/s Anil Kumar, Kanpur v. Income Tax Officer - 3(1), Kanpur

ITA 143/LKW/2013 | 2008-2009
Pronouncement Date: 24-07-2013 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 14323714 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN AACFA6855E
Bench Lucknow
Appeal Number ITA 143/LKW/2013
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant M/s Anil Kumar, Kanpur
Respondent Income Tax Officer - 3(1), Kanpur
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 24-07-2013
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 24-07-2013
Date Of Final Hearing 12-06-2013
Next Hearing Date 12-06-2013
Assessment Year 2008-2009
Appeal Filed On 15-03-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW SMC BENCH LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.143/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 M/S ANIL KUMAR PLOT NO.68 ARAZI NO.916 DAHELI SUJANPUR SHYAM NAGAR KANPUR V. ITO WARD 3(1) KANPUR PAN:AACFA6855E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PP ELLANT B Y :SHRI. M.C. GU P TA ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. ALOK MITRA D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 12.06.2013 DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT: 24.07.2013 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY TH E ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON VARIOUS GROU NDS WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN PASSING ORDER U/S 250 OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961 WI THOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARD ON 26. 11.2012 WHILE THE APPELLANT WAS PRESENT ALONG WITH SRI MAHESH CHANDRA GUPTA (ADVOCATE) 2. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN COMMUNICATING THE ORDER ON 27.02. 2013 BY REGISTERED POST NO. EU871621282IN DATED 26.02.2013 WHILE ORDER WAS PASSED ON 29.11.2012. 3. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT IN ENHANCING THE TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.1 97 480/- OF A.O. BY RS.23 77 730/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE BUSINESS OF LABOUR CONTRACT AMOUNT OF RS. 57 17 978/- {RS. 88 16 821.00 - RS. :-2-: 30 98 843.00}. 4. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT THAT THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS OF BUSINESS WORK HAVE ALRE ADY FILED BEFORE C.I.T. (APPEAL). 5. THAT THE LEARNED C.I.T. (APPEAL) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND FACT THE RELIEF CLAIMED BEFORE C.I.T. (A PPEAL) HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING OF THE APPEAL TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDED THE APPEAL EX- PARTE. THEREFORE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OT HER HAND HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS AFFORDED SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL IT. THE ASSESSEE RATHER SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS ON ALL DATES OF HEARING FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS THEREFORE FORCED TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE NO SECOND INNING CAN BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION S AND FROM A CAREFUL PERUSAL OF RECORD I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A CIVI L CONTRACTOR AND HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME AT ` 96 450. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE CERTAIN ADDITIONS AGAINST WHICH AN A PPEAL WAS FILED BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED TH AT LABOUR/WAGE IS DEBITED AT ` 48 67 580 AGAINST THE GROSS RECEIPT OF ` 88 16 821. THE LABOUR AND WAGES EXPENSES ITSELF CONSTITUTED MORE THAN 50% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCORDINGLY ASKED TO PR ODUCE THE BILLS VOUCHE RS AND OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAI M OF LABOUR/WAGES EXPENSES OF ` 48 67 580. HEARING WAS FIXED ON DIFFERENT DATE S BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED REQUISITE MATERIAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) AND HE ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWED 50% OF THE LABOUR/WAGE EXPENSES AND ENHANC ED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT :-3-: IS ALSO NOTICED FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ISSUED NOTICE OF ENHANCEMENT TO TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE ENHANCING THE INCOME. MOREOVER FROM PERUSAL OF ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A) IT APPEARS THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE ENHANCING THE INCOME BY MAKING PART DISALLOWANCE OF LABOUR/WAGES EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. I AM THEREFORE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE WAS NOT PROPERLY EXAMINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THUS IT REQUIRES A FRESH ADJUDICATION BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY I SET ASIDE THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO RE-ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUN ITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) AND TO EXTE ND ALL SORT OF CO- OPERATION BY PRODUCING THE RELEVANT RE CORD AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IF THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO CO-OPERATE WITH TH E LD. CIT(A) THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24.7.2013. SD/- [SUNIL KUMAR YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:24.7.2013 JJ:2606 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR