Karur Jayaprakash Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
We notice that the CIT(A) in his order has admitted the fact that the assessee’s representative for the first time produced various details on 21.06.2010 (page 4 of CIT(A)’s order). The CIT (A) has infact verified these evidences but had rejected the same merely on the ground that these details should have been available with the assessee during the assessment proceedings itself and should have been produced before the AO. In our view the decision of CIT(A) on a presumptive basis is incorrect and the CIT(A) has disposed off the appeal without considering the merits of the evidences submitted. The assessee’s submission that the consultant handled the assessment proceedings in an unprofessional manner also warrants consideration.
Under these facts as discussed above and in the interest of justice, we feel it proper to restore back this matter to the file of AO for fresh decision after admitting the evidences which the assessee may like to bring on record. We order accordingly. We set aside the order of CIT(A) and restore the matter back to the AO for fresh decision after allowing sufficient opportunity to the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal is directed against the order of the CIT(A), Kalaburagi dated 31/08/2015 for the asst. year 2007-08.
2. The assessee raised the following grounds before us.
1. Order of the CIT(A) not served on the Appellant till date
The [earned CIT(A) grossly erred in law by not serving the order under section 250 of’ the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) on the Appellant. The Appellant was unaware of the order passed by the CIT(A) until recovery proceedings were initiated against him and the bank accounts were frozen on 31 December 2020.
2. Recovery Proceedings initiated without serving the order under section 250 of the Act on the Appellant
The learned ITO erred in law by initiating the recovery proceedings on the Appellant without the Appellant being served the order from the CIT(A)’s office.
3. Natural justice denied to the Appellant
The learned CIT(A) has erred in law by passing an order without giving the Appellant the opportunity of being heard, thereby, denying natural justice to the Appellant.
4. Erred in attaching the bank accounts
The learned DCIT erred in attaching the bank accounts of the assessee without serving a notice of demand to the aseessee.
5. Long Term Capital Gain on sale of shares
The learned CIT(A) erred in facts and in law by upholding the denial of exemption under section 54F of the Act without considering the submissions made by the Appellant and giving an opportunity of being heard. Further, the learned CIT(A) disregarded the valuation report submitted by the assessee.
6. Interest levied under section 234B of the Act
The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under section 234B of the Act.
7. Interest levied under section 234D of the Act
The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the levy of interest under section 234D of the Act.
8. Initiation of penalty proceedings tinder section 271(1)(c) of the Act
The learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts in upholding initiation of penalty proceedings by the Assessing Officer under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Act.
9. Relief
The Appellant prays that directions be given to grant all such relief arising from the preceding grounds as
also all reliefs consequential thereto.
The Appellant craves leave to add to or alter, by deletion, substitution or otherwise, any or all of the above grounds of appeal, at any time before or during the hearing of the appeal.
