Abhaya Kumar Dash, Cuttack v. Principal CIT, Cuttack Charge, Cuttack

ITA 186/CTK/2017 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2019 | Result: Dismissed

Our System has flagged this appeal as eligible for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. If you are party to this appeal, get on a Free Consultation Call with our team of Legal Experts who shall guide you as to how you can save huge Interest and Penalty in VSV Scheme.


Apply Now
        
Try VSV Calculator

Appeal Details

RSA Number 18622114 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN ACHPD4475H
Bench Cuttack
Appeal Number ITA 186/CTK/2017
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
Appellant Abhaya Kumar Dash, Cuttack
Respondent Principal CIT, Cuttack Charge, Cuttack
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-11-2019
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 19-11-2019
Last Hearing Date 27-06-2018
First Hearing Date 02-08-2019
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 09-05-2017
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG JM & SHRI L.P. SAHU AM . / ITA NO. 186 /CTK/201 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR :20 12 - 20 13 ) ABHAYA KUMAR DASH BIDHYADHARPUR NAYA BAZAR CUTTACK - 753004 VS. PR. CIT CUTTACK ./ PANNO. : A C HPD 4475 H ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C.SETHI ADVOCATE /REVENUE BY : SHRI S.M.KESHKAMAT CITDR / DATE OF HEARING : 14 / 11 /2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 / 1 1 /2019 / O R D E R PER L.P.SAHU A M : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF PR. CIT CUTTACK DATED 14 .03.201 7 FO R THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 20 11 - 20 12 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : - 1. THAT THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT 1961 [HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS 'THE ACT'] IS PER SE ILLEGAL UNJUST WITHOUT JURISDICTION ARBITRARY AND CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND HAS BEEN PASSED IN GROSS VIOLATION TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IGNORING AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND ARGUMENT PLACED BEFORE THE LEARNED PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CUTTACK [HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS 'THE LEARNED PR.CIT'] A ND FOR WHICH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PR.CIT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND/OR ANNULLED. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AS OBTAINED FROM THE CUSTOMER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND FOR WHICH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WITHOUT HAVING ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE O N RECORD AND FOR WHICH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PR.CIT BY SET ASIDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ITA NO . 186 /CTK/201 7 2 IS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND/OR ANNULLED. 3. THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PR.CIT WITHOUT HAVING ANY INFORMATION WHATSOEVER THAT THE ADVANCE MONEY RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS DISCLOSED UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT LIABILITIES HELD TO BE BOGUS AS NO ENQUIRY HAS BEEN DONE BY THE LEARNED PR. CIT BEFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED A SSESSING OFFICER AND FOR WHICH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED PR.CIT IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND/OR ANNULLED. 4. THAT THE LEARNED PR.CLT HAS PASSED THE ORDER IGNORING THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT SO FAR AS THE COST OF LITIGATION IS CONCERNED A ND FOR WHICH THE COST OF LITIGATION IS TO BE BORNE BY THE INCOME - TAX DEPARTMENT AS THE NEGLIGENCE IF ANY ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE APPELLANT SHOULD NOT BE MADE TO SUFFER. 5. THAT THE COST OF LITIGATION OF APPEAL MADE BEFORE THIS HON'BL E TRIBUNAL IS TO BE BORNE BY THE INCOME - TAX DEPARTMENT. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT MAY ADD ALTER DELETE WITHDRAW OR MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE MATTER WITH THE LEAVE OF THE HON'BLE ITAT. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM MANUFACTURING OF FLY - ASH BRICKS MACHINE & JOB WORKS AND FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 26.09.2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 2013 DISCLOSING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7 88 270/ - WHICH WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQ UENTLY THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS. THEREAFTER THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3 96 143/ - ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT VIDE ORDER DATED 27.02.2015. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY THE PR. CIT CUTTACK EXE RCISING HIS POWER U/S.263 OF THE ACT SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. ITA NO . 186 /CTK/201 7 3 4. LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS PASSED THE ORDER U/ S 143(3) OF THE ACT AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF THE CONFIRMATION LETTER SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS OBTAINED FROM THE CUSTOMER TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO AND FOR WHICH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A O CANNOT BE SAID TO BE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F REVENUE WITHOUT HAVING ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD AND FOR WHICH THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PR.CIT BY SET TING ASID E THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ILLEGAL AND CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED AND/OR ANNULLED. 5. O N THE OTHER HAND LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. AFTER HEARING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD WE FIND THAT THE PR. CIT IN THE REVISION PROCEEDING FOUND THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS OF THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE ALLEGED CUSTOMERS AND ACCORDINGLY HE DIRECTED THE AO TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT AFTER PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS. THEREAFTER ON THE DIRECTION OF THE PR. CIT CUTTACK IN THE REVISONARY ORDER PASSED U/S.263 OF THE ACT THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3)/263 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 22.12.2017 A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD WHEREIN THE AO CALLED FOR THE INFORMATION U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT FROM ALL THE PARTIES AND THE SAME WERE RECEIVED BY POST I N WHICH HE HAS DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.2 79 040/ - ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUE . ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME IT IS CLEAR ITA NO . 186 /CTK/201 7 4 THAT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE AO HAD NOT MADE ENQUIRIES PROPERLY WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE ADVANCES RECEIVED FROM THE ALLEGED CUSTOMERS. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION THE PR. CIT WAS JUST AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT HOLDING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE IN ABSENCE OF ANY PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS AS WELL AS P ROPER ENQUIRY ON THE PART OF THE AO. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE PR. CIT AND FOUND THAT THERE IS NO NECESSITY TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDINGS RECORDED BY THE PR.CIT IN DIRECTING THE AO TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENT. ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 . IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 / 1 1 / 201 9 . SD/ - ( C.M.GARG ) SD/ - ( L.P.SAHU ) / JUDICIAL MEM BER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 19 / 1 1 /201 9 PRAKASH KUMAR MISHRA SR.P.S. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) / ITAT CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - ABHAYA KUMAR DASH BIDHYADHARPUR NAYA BAZAR CU TTACK - 753004 2. / THE RESPONDENT - PRINCIPAL CIT CUTTACK 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT 5. / DR ITAT CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//