9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (6) TMI 1546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... VIVEKKUMAR CHAVDA (6666) CAV JUDGMENT ( PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. As common question of law and facts arise in this group of appeals and with respect to same assessee but for different assessment years and as such arise out of the impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, all these appeals are decided and disposed of by this common judgment and order. 2.0. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, A Bench, Ahmedabad passed in Appeal being IT(SS) A No.117/AHD/2015 for AY 200506 to 201011, by which, the learned Tribunal has allowed the said appeals and without assigning any reason and without any justification has set aside the orders passed by the learned ITAT and has remitted the matter / restored the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A), the Revenue has preferred present Tax Appeal to consider the following questions of law. ( A) Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the order passed by the CIT(A) on the ground that CIT(A) had not rendered any decision on merits without apprecia ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s dated 03.01.2013, 08.02.2013 and 25.03.2013. It was noticed that no reply has been received on various queries raised except a copy of bank statement. Therefore, a final show cause under Section 142(1) of the Act for completion of assessment under Section 144 of the Act was issued on 01.03.2013 but no reply was received till 12.03.2013. Therefore, it was found that only reply submitted in the case of Thakore Group was in the case of assessee's brother. So far as assessee is concerned, despite almost 5 to 6 opportunities were given, no reply was filed. That thereafter, the AO proceeded further with to finalize the assessment proceedings under Section 144 of the Act on the basis of details available on record. That after considering the material on record, the investment on the land of ₹ 5,13,883/was treated as unexplained investment and the same was added to the total income of the assessee. That the AO also observed that penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is being initiated for submitting inaccurate particulars of income. 3.2. Similar, additions were made on unexplained investment in purchased of the land for the remaining assessment years. 3.3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ( B) Whether the Appellate Tribunal erred in setting aside the matter to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication without taking into consideration whether there were justifiable grounds for making total noncompliance by the assessee before the CIT(A) as well as the Assessing Officer? 4.0. Mrs. Bhatt, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the Revenue and Shri Vivek Chavda, learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the common assessee. 5.0. Mrs. Bhatt, learned advocate for the Revenue has vehemently submitted that impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal suffers from unreasonableness and arbitrariness and therefore, the same deserves to be quashed and set aside. 5.1. It is vehemently submitted by Mrs. Bhatt, learned advocate for the Revenue that no reason whatsoever has been given by the learned Tribunal as to why the orders passed by the learned CIT(A) deserve to be quashed and set aside and why the matters are required to be restored back to the file of the learned CIT(A). It is vehemently submitted by Mrs. Bhatt, learned advocate for the Revenue that before AO as well as learned CIT(A) all throughout assessee was non cooperative and despite ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... passed by the learned Tribunal. 6.0. Shri Vivek Chavda, learned advocate for the assessee has made only one submission that the Tribunal has remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for deciding the controversy afresh, it cannot be said that any substantial question of law or even the question had arisen from such an order. In support of his above submission, he has relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir in the case of Nek Ram Sharma and Co vs. Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reported in (2011) 115 Taxman 636 (J K). It is submitted that therefore, when it cannot be said that any substantial question of law arise. It is requested to dismiss the present appeals. 7.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at length. Perused the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal. By impugned judgment and order passed by the learned ITAT, the Tribunal has remitted the matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) for afresh adjudication by solely observing that we consider it expedient to restore the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) in the larger interest of justice with a view to enable the assessee to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... present on behalf of assessee. Thereafter, the learned CIT(A) proceeded further with the appeal exparte and decided the appeal on merits and confirmed the order passed by the AO confirming additions of unexplained investment. Thus, even learned CIT(A) also decided the matter on merits. On going through the orders passed by the AO as well as learned CIT(A), we are of the opinion that in absence of any explanation by the assessee on the investment in question, AO was justified in making the addition of unexplained investment and thereafter learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the same. Therefore, even the order passed by the learned CIT(A) which was on merits was not required to be interfered with by the learned CIT(A) and ought not to have been quashed and set aside without assigning any reasons. Under the circumstances, the impugned orders passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained. 9.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the questions of law are answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee and impugned common judgment and order passed by the learned Tribunal in IT(SS) A No.117/AHD/2015 to IT(SS) A No.122/AHD/2015 is hereby quashe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
