2014 (7) TMI 80 - AT - Income Tax

Tribunal overturns tax ruling, emphasizes fair hearing process.

Mr. Pankaj B. Kotecha Versus The Income Tax Officer

The Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal, setting aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and remanding the issue for reconsideration due to ... Opportunity of being heard - Admission of additional evidences - Held that:- The assessee has given a statement that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not provided opportunity of hearing to the assessee, because the name of the authorised representative which has been noted in the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is Mr. Dhananjay Sharma, Chartered Accountant, whereas in the body of the order, he has mentioned the name of one Mr. Ramakant Sharma, had appeared and explained the case - Commissioner (Appeals) had rejected the adjournment and proceeded to decide the case on merit after noting the presence of Mr. Ramakant Sharma, who was not well versed with the facts of the case - the assessee has given the statement at the bar and in the absence of any rebuttal by other side – the matter is to be remitted back to the CIT(A) for admission of the additional evidences which have been filed – Decided in favour of Assessee. Issues:Challenge to assessment order under section 143(3) r/w section 147 for assessment year 2006-07 - Treatment of long term capital gain as unexplained cash credit u/s 68.Analysis:The appeal was filed challenging the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the assessment for the year 2006-07. The main contention raised was the treatment of long term capital gain on the sale of equity shares as unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appellant argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not provide sufficient opportunity for a proper hearing, leading to the inability to present relevant documents and evidence crucial to the case. The appellant submitted additional evidences and a petition for their admission to support their case.The central issue in this case revolved around whether the transactions involving the purchase and sale of shares could be considered genuine, and if the claim of long term capital gain could be deemed as bogus. The appellant contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) did not adequately consider the facts of the case and instead relied on previous case laws and the Assessing Officer's findings. The appellant sought the admission of additional evidence to enable a thorough examination of the matter based on merits.During the proceedings, the Departmental Representative supported the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order but suggested an alternative of remanding the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for consideration of the additional evidence and a decision in line with the law and facts of the case. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments presented by both sides. It was noted that there was a discrepancy in the representation of the appellant before the Commissioner (Appeals), where the authorized representative's name was incorrectly recorded, leading to a lack of proper hearing opportunity. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to set aside the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and remand the issue back to them for reconsideration.Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the appellant's appeal for statistical purposes, indicating that the matter needed to be revisited by the Commissioner (Appeals) with the admission of additional evidence and a fair hearing process. The decision was pronounced in an open court on 19th June 2014.