The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax 3 v. Ashokji Chanduji Thakor

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL No. 1160 of 2018 WithR/TAX APPEAL No. 1161 of 2018 =============================================================THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX 3VersusASHOKJI CHANDUJI THAKOR ============================================================= Appearance : Mr MANISH R BHATT, Sr Advocate with Mrs MAUNA M BHATT, Advocate for the PETITIONER(s) No. 1NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the RESPONDENT(s) No. 1 ============================================================= CORAM: HONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE AKIL KURESHIandHONOURABLE Mr. JUSTICE B.N. KARIA9[th] October 2018 COMMON ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI) Both these appeals are filed by the Revenue. Revenue has challenged the judgment of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad [“Tribunal” for short] dated 27[th ]December 2017 by which the Tribunal was pleased to remand the proceedings before the CIT [A] for fresh adjudication. The Tribunal noted that despite service of notices, before CIT [A] no one appeared on behalf of the assesses. No written response was also made. Despite this, the Tribunal placed the matter back before the CIT [A] for fresh consideration. We may noticed that in case of the group of assesses, this Court in Tax Appeal No. 710 of 2018 and connected appeals, by judgment dated 27[th] June 2018 had reversed such a view of the Tribunal. The Court was of the opinion that the Tribunal had exercised its discretion without stating reasons. Eventually, the Court made the following observations : “8.0. It is required to be noted that in the present case right from very begging i.e. assessment proceeding, assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given by the AO, however assessee did not cooperate and even did not file any reply. Therefore, considering the material on record, the AO made addition as unexplained investment. Even before the learned CIT(A) also the assessee was non cooperative. Number of opportunities were given to the assessee to represent his case, however none remained present on behalf of assessee. Thereafter, the learned CIT(A) proceeded further with the appeal ex parte 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 quashed and set aside and the orders passed by the AO as well as learned CIT(A) are restored. All the appeals are allowed accordingly. No costs.” In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed. Impugned common order of the Tribunal is set-aside. [Akil Kureshi, J.] Prakash [B.N Karia, J.]