IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
`A' BENCH AHMEDABAD
(BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, VP AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM)
ITA No.3116/Ahd/2010
A. Y.: 2007-08
Shri Umang H. Thakkar, HUF, Vs The Income Tax Officer,
Swaminarayan Kutir, Ward 9 (4),
Opp. YMCA Club, Ahmedabad
Sarkhej Gandhinagar Highway,
Ahmedabad
P. A. No. AAAHU 3409 B
(Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by Shri A. K. Thakkar, AR
Respondent by Shri Kartar Singh, CIT DR
Date of hearing: 02-07-2012
Date of pronouncement: 02-07-2012
ORDER
PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: This appeal filed by the assessee
is directed against the order of the learned CIT(A)-XV, Ahmedabad
in Appeal No. CIT(A)-XV/9(4)/406/09-10 dated 22-09-2010, for
assessment year 2007-08. The assessee has raised the following
grounds:
"1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has
erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,92,32,126/- (2,76,941 +
16,29,735) made by the Assessing Officer for the alleged bogus
creditors and/or ceased liability u/s. 41(1) of the Income Tax Act
1961,
2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has
erred in confirming the addition of Rs.7,37,463/- made by the
ITA No.3116/Ahd/2010 (AY 2007-08) 2
Shri Umang H. Thakkar, HUF Vs ITO, W-9(1), Ahmedabad
Assessing Officer for the alleged bogus purchases in trading
account of Swaminarayan Developers
3. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has
erred in not taking cognizance of the fact that the assessing
Officer has added opening balances & creditors as bogus
purchases when in fact there is no purchase recorded in the
year of appeal.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has
erred in confirming the additions to the extent of Rs.10,68,000/-
& Rs.28,41,300/- u/s. 68 of the I. T. Act, 1961 alleging that the
proper confirmations not furnished and the booking amounts
received as advances not found accounted or cancelled by the
appellant.
5. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has
erred in confirming additions without taking cognizance of the
Remand report dtd. 17.09.2010.
6. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has
erred in not considering the valuation report of the Govt.
Approved Valuer which certifies the value of WIP & which is not
disputed by the Assessing Officer/Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals).
7. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has
erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.6,05,905/- made by
the Assessing Officer being the amount of deduction claimed by
the appellant u/s. 80 IB of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in
Devnandan Enterprise.
8. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has
erred in holding that where the builder receives a fixed
percentage deduction u/s. 80 IB (10) is not allowable.
9. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has
erred in confirming the action of the A. O. in completing the
Assessment and passing an order in violation of the principles
of natural justice and equity and thereby erred in depriving the
ITA No.3116/Ahd/2010 (AY 2007-08) 3
Shri Umang H. Thakkar, HUF Vs ITO, W-9(1), Ahmedabad
appellant from making effective representation and furnishing
the details during the course of assessment proceedings.
10. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has
erred in confirming the action of the A. O. in passing an order in
violation of the principles of natural justice and equity by not
affording the appellant the opportunity of cross examination in
spite of specific request to that effect made by the appellant.
11. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend or modify
any of the grounds of appeal on or before the date of hearing of
appeal."
2. Brief facts: The assessee is a HUF and further engaged in the
business as Developer filed its return of income declaring an income
of Rs.15,99,140/- on 24-03-2008. The case was selected for scrutiny
and assessment order was passed by the learned AO u/s 143(3) of
the Act on 31-12-2009 by computing total income of the assessee at
Rs.7,85,06,300/- by making various additions and disallowances,
since the learned AO did not find the evidences, explanations and
submissions of the assessee to be acceptable. On appeal by the
assessee before the learned CIT(A) the order of the learned AO was
confirmed without awaiting for the remand report from the learned
AO, though the learned CIT(A) had called for the remand report from
the learned AO based on the detailed written submission submitted
by the assessee.
3. Before us, the learned AR argued that the assessee had filed a
detailed written submission with all particulars in order to support its
case. The learned CIT(A) had referred the matter to the learned AO
in order to obtain a remand report, but since no remand report was
ITA No.3116/Ahd/2010 (AY 2007-08) 4
Shri Umang H. Thakkar, HUF Vs ITO, W-9(1), Ahmedabad
submitted by the learned AO, the learned CIT(A) had hastily passed
the order. It was therefore, prayed by the learned AR that the matter
may be remanded back to the file of the learned CIT(A) so that he
may obtain remand report from the learned AO and pass appropriate
order on merit complying with the Principle of Natural Justice. The
learned DR could not controvert to the submission of the learned AR.
4. After hearing both the sides we are of the considered view that
an opportunity needs to be given to the assessee to present its case
before the learned CIT(A) after obtaining the remand report from the
learned AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we hereby remit the
matter back to the file of the learned CIT(A) so that he shall obtain the
remand report from the learned AO and after considering the written
submission and arguments of both the sides pass appropriate order
as per law and on merits
5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 02-07-2012
Sd/- Sd/-
(G. C. GUPTA) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY)
VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Lakshmikant Deka/-
ITA No.3116/Ahd/2010 (AY 2007-08) 5
Shri Umang H. Thakkar, HUF Vs ITO, W-9(1), Ahmedabad
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
Dy. Registrar, ITAT, Ahmedabad
1. Date of dictation: 03-07-12
2. Date on which the typed draft is placed before the
Dictating Member: 03-07-12 other Member:
3. Date on which approved draft comes to the Sr. P. S./P.S.:
4. Date on which the fair order is placed before the
Dictating Member for pronouncement:
5. Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. P.S./P.S.:
6. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk:
7. Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk:
8. The date on which the file goes to the
Assistant Registrar for signature on the order:
9. Date of Despatch of the Order:
|
