Gangaben Ramji Shah, Solapur V. ITO, Solapur

ITA 1008/PUN/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7651 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 22-07-2008
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHAY DAMLE
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 234B; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPLLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ITA NO. 1008/PN/08 (A.Y 2003-04) GANGABEN RAMJI SHAH 140 RAILWAY LINE, SOLAPUR PAN NO. AOZP29178L .... APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-1(1), SOLAPUR . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. M.N. KULKARNI RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ABHAY DAMLE ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-III, PUNE DATED 17-03-2008 FOR THE A.Y 2003-04 AND THE GR OUNDS RAISED ARE AS UNDER:- 1. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S . 68 OF RS. 141000/- IS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS AGAINST AG RICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY ASSESSEE. 2. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR JUST AND EQUITABLE RELIEF B Y DELETING ADDITIONS. 3. APPELLANT DENIES LIABILITY TO CHARGE INTEREST U /S. 234A, 234B AND 234C. APPELLANT PRAYS TO DELETE THE SAME. 2. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US AND AT THE VERY OUT SET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION REL ATES TO THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.41 LAKHS U/S. 68 AND IT RELATES TO EARNING OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. FAIRLY LD. COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE CONTAINS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF 7/12 EXTRACT FOR THE F.Y 2002 -03, WHICH WAS NOT FILED BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE FACT OF ADD ITION EVIDENCE AND THE ITA NOS. 1008/PN/08 A.Y: 2003-04 PAGE 2 OF 3 ASSESSEES FAILURE TO SUBMIT NECESSARY EVIDENCE TO TH E AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT AND FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO THE ADDIT IONS AND CONFIRMING OF THE ADDITIONS BY THE RESPECTIVE REVENUE AUTHORITIES WAS A LSO INFORMED. FURTHER, LD. COUNSEL ALSO MENTIONED ABOUT THE FACTS LEADING TO T HE DELAY IN FILING AN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND FURTHER STATED THE SAME IS ATTRI BUTABLE TO THE INADEQUATE ADVICE OF THE LEGAL COUNSELORS. LD. COUNSEL PRAYED BY CONDONING THE DELAY . FURTHER, HE ALSO INFORMED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS REFERRED TO THE FILES OF A.O IN VIEW OF THE EXISTENCE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES CITED UPON. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE OPPOSED THE PRAYER FOR BOTH CONDONATION AS WELL AS THE ADMITTANCE OF THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE. OTHERWISE, HE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE BOTH FOR CONDONATION AS WELL AS ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. WE HAVE CONS IDERED THE ASSESSEES NO OBJECTION FOR SENDING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILES OF THE A.O. ON CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, WE FIND THAT IN THE INTEREST OF THE JUSTICE T HE REQUEST FOR CONDONATION AS WELL AS THE ADMITTANCE OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES CANNO T BE REJECTED. THEREFORE, WE PROCEED TO CONDONE THE DELAY CONSIDERING THE REASONS G IVEN IN THE ASSESSEES LETTER DATED 23/02/2010. REGARDING THE ADMITTANCE OF THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCES WE FIND THAT IT IS A FACT THAT THE 7/12 EXTRACT RELATABLE TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE A.O IN ITS PRESENT FORM. THEREFORE , WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND MUST BE S ENT TO THE FILES OF THE A.O FOR EXAMINING THE SAME AND THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GRANTING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO FILE RELEVANT PAPERS AND EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM RELATING TO EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS . 1.41 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SET ASIDE . 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDERS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH JANUARY, 2011 SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE DATED THE 28 TH JANUARY, 2011 R ITA NOS. 1008/PN/08 A.Y: 2003-04 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. ITO, WARD 1(1), SOLAPUR 3. CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4. CIT-IV, PUNE 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T PUNE