Sunilkumar Yogeshbhai Patel, Surat v. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(4),, Surat

ITA 1554/AHD/2010 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 13-08-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 155420514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AKGPP6644M
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 1554/AHD/2010
Duration Of Justice 3 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant Sunilkumar Yogeshbhai Patel, Surat
Respondent The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(4),, Surat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 13-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 13-08-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 06-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 06-08-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 11-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE S/SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI JM AND D. C. AGRAWAL AM) ITA NO.1554/AHD/2010 A. Y.: 2003-04 SUNILKUMAR Y. PATEL 1 OLD SHAKTI VIJAY SOCIETY VARACHHA ROAD SURAT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9 (4) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MAJURA GATE SURAT PA NO. AKGPP 6644M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.1555/AHD/2010 A.Y.: 2003-04 SMT. DAXABEN YOGESHBHAI PATEL 1 OLD SHAKTI VIJAY SOCIETY VARACHHA ROAD SURAT VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 9 (1) AAYAKAR BHAVAN MAJURA GATE SURAT PA NO. AIIPP 8842 K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI R. K. DHANESTA DR O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI: BOTH THE APPEALS BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED THE AGAINST ORDERS OF THE CIT(A)-V SU RAT DATED 16-03-2010 AND 18-03-2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 CHALLEN GING THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS ADDITIONS ON MERIT. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES SUBMITTED THAT THE AO MADE THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS IN THE CASES OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES AND THE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE CASES OF BENAMIDAR OF SHRI UMESHKUMAR PANDYA GROUP AND SHRI YOGESHBHAI PA NDYA OF YOGESHBHAI PANDYA GROUP. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENTS HAVE B EEN MADE IN THE GROUP CASES OF UMESHKUMAR PANDYA GROUP AND YOGESHBH AI PANDYA ITA NO.1554 AND 1555/AHD/2010 SUNIL KR. PATEL AND DAXABEN Y PATEL VS ITO SURAT 2 GROUP THEREFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DEC IDED BOTH THE APPEALS TOGETHER WITH THE PARTIES IN WHOSE CASES SU BSTANTIVE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEES SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER THEREFORE REQUIRES RECO NSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARN ED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES HAVE NOT COMPLIED WITH THE STATUTORY NOTICES BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THEREFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DISM ISSING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEES. 3. ON CONSIDERATION OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND FA CTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES RECONSIDER ATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT IN BOTH TH E CASES OF THE ASSESSEES THE AO MADE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE SUBSTAN TIVE ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE IN THE CASES OF UMESHKUMAR PANDYA GROUP A ND YOGESHBHAI PANDYA GROUP. THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEES DECIDED BOTH THE APP EALS EX-PARTE BECAUSE THE ASSESSEES HAVE FAILED TO OFFER ANY EXPLANATION. HOWEVER THE LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT ONCE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF INCOME IS ASSESSED SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF THE BENEFICIARY PRO TECTIVE ASSESSMENTS WILL NO LONGER SURVIVE. THEREFORE NO PREJUDICE IS GOING TO BE CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEES IN MAKING THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS BY T HE AO. THE ABOVE FINDINGS WOULD SHOW THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THE APPEALS ON WHICH ADDITIONS HAVE B EEN MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. IT IS ALSO NOT CLEAR AS TO WHAT HAPPENED TO SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENTS OF THE GROUP CASES OF UMESHKUMAR PANDYA GROUP AND YOGESHBHAI PANDYA GROUP. IT IS TRUE THAT THE ASSESS EES HAVE NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVE ALSO NOT MADE ANY EXPLANATION. BUT PREJUDICE WOULD HAVE BEEN DEFINITE LY CAUSED TO THE ASSESSEES IN CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) MIGHT COME TO THE CONTRARY FINDING ITA NO.1554 AND 1555/AHD/2010 SUNIL KR. PATEL AND DAXABEN Y PATEL VS ITO SURAT 3 IN THE GROUP CASES OF UMESHKUMAR PANDYA GROUP AND Y OGESHBHAI PANDYA GROUP THAT NO SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENTS SHALL HAVE TO BE MADE IN THEIR CASES. IN THE EVENT OF SUCH A FINDING IN THE GROUP CASES WHERE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THE SUBSTAN TIVE ASSESSMENTS WOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE CASES OF THE PRESENT ASS ESSEES AND THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS COULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS S UBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENTS AS PER LAW. THEREFORE ON SUCH AN EVENT AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE IT WOULD HAVE BEEN PROPER FOR THE LEARNED CIT( A) TO DECIDE ALL CONNECTED APPEALS TOGETHER WHERE SUBSTANTIVE AND PR OTECTIVE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON THE SAME MA TTER IN ISSUE. THEREFORE THE ULTIMATE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT (A) COULD HAVE CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE ASSESSEES. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASI DE THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORE BOTH THE APPEALS TO HIS FILE WITH DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE BOTH THE APPEALS ALONG WITH THE APPEALS W HERE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED BEFORE HIM. THE LE ARNED CIT(A) SHALL GIVE REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD TO BOTH THE ASSESSEES. 4. AS A RESULT BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES A RE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 13-08-2010 SD/- SD/- (D. C. AGRAWAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE : 13-08-2010 LAKSHMIKANT/- ITA NO.1554 AND 1555/AHD/2010 SUNIL KR. PATEL AND DAXABEN Y PATEL VS ITO SURAT 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER D Y. REGISTRAR ITAT AHMEDABAD