9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 558X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ersistent requests by the assessee were not being made available by him. As observed by us hereinabove, we find that the assessee had also requested the CIT(A) for directing the A.O to supply the aforesaid documents as the same had a material bearing on the disposal of the appeal. We find that the reasons leading to seeking of adjournments by the assessee cannot be taken as a reflection of her lackadaisical approach that was adopted in the course of the appellate proceedings. We further find that as on 02.08.2018 the assessee had sought an adjournment and was informed by the office staff of the CIT(A)-37, Mumbai, that a fresh date of hearing will be issued. In the totality of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that the adjournments sought by the assessee on different occasions before the CIT(A) could neither be held to be backed by flimsy grounds or unjustified. Assessee allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos.5492 & 5493/Mum/2018, ITA No.5494/Mum/2018 - - - Dated:- 27-2-2019 - Shri G.S.Pannu, Vice President And Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri Rahul K. Hakani, A.R For the Respondent : Shri Prakash Mane, D.R ORDER ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e cross examination of the parties, not granting the inspection or copy of the documents relied upon and thus the said order is against the principles of natural justice. 8. On facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the honorable Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not accepting the fact that the sale of such shares was through a Recognised Stock exchange and S.T.T. has been paid and the sale proceeds were received in the bank account of the assessee u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 9. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not deciding the matter on merit. 10. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to each other. 11. The assessee prays for leave to add, alter or amend any or all of the above grounds of appeal at or before the date of hearing. 2. Briefly stated, the assessee had filed her return of income for A.Y. 2013-14 on 30.09.2013, declaring total income at ₹ 9,17,820/-. The return of income filed by the assessee was processed as such under Sec. 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short IT Act ). Subsequently, the case of the assessee was reopened under Sec. 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... - stated to have been received back by the assessee on the sale of shares was added to her total income under Sec. 68 of the IT Act. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The assessee in the course of the proceedings before the CIT(A) filed letters dated 20.12.2017 and 02.08.2018 and requested him to direct the A.O to provide certain documents and statements which were relied upon by him while framing the assessment. However, as the assessee in the course of the appellate proceedings had failed to put up an appearance before the CIT(A) and had rather sight adjournments from time to time, therefore, the appellate authority holding a conviction that the assessee had adopted a lackadaisical approach with regard to the appellate proceedings, upheld the order passed by the A.O and dismissed the appeal. In so far the request of the assessee that the A.O be directed to provide documents and statements which were relied upon by him while framing the assessment was concerned, it was observed by the CIT(A) that the assessee had failed to establish as to how the said documents and evidences were relevant to the proceedings before him. 5. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... efore the CIT(A) was for bonafide reasons and circumstances which were beyond her control. The ld. A.R submitted that keeping in view the totality of the facts the matter in all fairness may be restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 6. Per contra, the ld. Departmental Representative (for short D.R ) relied on the order of the CIT(A). It was submitted by the ld. D.R that as the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunity had failed to put up an appearance before the CIT(A), therefore, the latter being left with no other alternative had rightly dismissed the appeal. 7. We have heard the authorized representatives for both the parties, perused the orders of the lower authorities and the material available on record. Admittedly, the appeal of the assessee was dismissed by the CIT(A)-37, Mumbai, for the reason that the assessee had failed to put up an appearance in the course of the appellate proceedings. We have given a thoughtful consideration to the reasons leading to the failure on the part of the assessee to put up an appearance in the course of the appellate proceedings and find substantial force in the same. We find that as deposed by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts which were acted upon by the A.O for drawing of adverse inferences in the hands of the assessee would be made available. In our considered view in the backdrop of the aforesaid deposition of the assessee, it can safely be gathered that the adjournments on various occasions were not sought on flimsy grounds, but were backed by the reason that the copies of the third party documents which were gathered and acted upon by the A.O while framing the assessment, despite persistent requests by the assessee were not being made available by him. As observed by us hereinabove, we find that the assessee had also requested the CIT(A) for directing the A.O to supply the aforesaid documents as the same had a material bearing on the disposal of the appeal. We find that the reasons leading to seeking of adjournments by the assessee cannot be taken as a reflection of her lackadaisical approach that was adopted in the course of the appellate proceedings. We further find that as on 02.08.2018 the assessee had sought an adjournment and was informed by the office staff of the CIT(A)-37, Mumbai, that a fresh date of hearing will be issued. In the totality of the aforesaid facts, we are of the consi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rms of our aforesaid observations the matter is restored to the file of the CIT(A) for refresh adjudication after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 12. The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. A.Y. 2014-15 ITA No. 5494/Mum/2018 13. We shall now advert to the appeal of the assessee viz. Mr. Arvind Mehta for A.Y 2014-15. Briefly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for A.Y. 2014-15 on 29.11.2014, declaring total income at ₹ 10,41,650/-. The A.O while framing the assessment disallowed the assesses claim in respect of exempt LTCG of ₹ 2,67,29,290/- Apart therefrom, an amount of ₹ 2,67,292/- (being 1% of total traded value of ₹ 2,67,29,2980/-) was also added to the income of the assessee as an unexplained expenditure under Sec. 69C on account of commission that would have been paid for arranging the entire bogus LTCG transaction. 14. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). However, as the assessee failed to put up an appearance in the course of hearing of the appeal, therefore, the CIT(A) being of the view that the assessee had adopted a lacka ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
