Shri Rizwan Ahmed, Bhopal V. The ITO 3(2), Bhopal

ITA 104/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 10422714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 80C; 154

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.104 AND 105/IND/2012 A.Y. 2006-07 RIZWAN AHMED BHOPAL PAN APSPA 5561R :: APPELLANT VS INCOME TAX OFFICER 3(2), BHOPAL :: RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI SUMIT NEMA RESPONDENT BY SHRI ARUN DEWAN DATE OF HEARING 2.05.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2.05.2012 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH , JUDICIAL MEMBER THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DA TED 1.11.2011 ON THE GROUND THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED IN 2 HASTE AND IN VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUS TICE FOR PRODUCTION OF LIP RECEIPTS AND OTHER PAYMENTS ELIGI BLE U/S 80C OF THE ACT AS SOME TIME WAS REQUIRED FOR COLLECTING TH E RELEVANT EVIDENCE FOR CLAIMING THE EXEMPTION AND FURTHER IMPOSING/CONFIRMING EX-PARTE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. DURING HEARING, WE HAVE HEARD SHRI SUMIT NEMA, L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI ARUN DEWAN, LEARN ED SENIOR DR. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE RULES, 1963, FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE BY SUBMITTING THAT FOR THE PAYMENTS OF LIP AND EDUC ATION FEE FOR HIS SON, THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED A CERTIFICATE OF LIC (OBTAINED ON 1.2.2012) IN RESPECT OF PREMIUM PAID FOR 2005-06 (F .Y.), TWO CHALLANS BY CORPORATION BANK. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THE LEARNED AO TO GRANT SOMETIME SO THAT THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES COULD BE OBTAINED. A PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN, NO DEDUCTION COULD BE CLAIMED U/S 80IC AS THESE DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE OBTAINED. THE LEARNED COUNSEL REQUESTED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS MAY BE CONSI DERED. THE LEARNED SENIOR DR STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT IN THE AB SENCE OF OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO, THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WILL BE ADVERSELY AFFECTED. 3 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THE A PPLICATION FILED U/S 154 ON 19.1.2009 THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IC AT RS. 1 LAC AGAINST RS. 11,538/- CLAIMED IN THE RE TURN. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED LIP RECEIPT FOR R S.5798/- ONLY WHICH COULD NOT BE FILED EVEN BEFORE THE LEARNED CI T(A). THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT AVAILABLE WHEN THE MATTER WAS HE ARD BY AO/CIT(A). IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THESE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCES GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER IN COMING TO A FAIR CO NCLUSION. HOWEVER, SINCE THESE DOCUMENTS ARE FILED AS A FRESH EVIDENCE/ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE SAME COULD NOT BE FILED EITHER AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE OR AT FIRST APPELLAT E STAGE, THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, FILED FIRST TIM E BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, IS ADMITTED. HOWEVER, THE INTEREST OF REV ENUE CANNOT BE IGNORED. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE O F NATURAL JUSTICE, WE REMAND BOTH THESE FILES TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO ME NTION HERE THAT DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 4 THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING ON 2.5.2012. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL ME MBER DATED: 2.5.2012 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE DN/-