SHRI BUNDESH KUMAR MEENA, Raisen V. THE ITO 3(1), Bhopal

ITA 104/IND/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 99155 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT JAIN JAIN S
• Keywords: Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE (SINGLE MEMBER CASE) BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 104/IND/2015 A.Y. : 2008-09 SHRI BUNDESH KUMAR MEENA, RAISEN VS. ITO, 3(1), BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AIUPM5342B A PPELLANT S BY : SHRI SUMIT NEMA AND SHRI AMIT JAIN, JAIN, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA, DR O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, BHOPAL, DATED 27.05.2014 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY TWO DAYS. TO THIS EFF ECT, THE ASSESSEE SHRI BUNDESH KUMAR MEENA HAS SUBMITTED AN DATE OF HEARING : 15 .12. 2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 . 1 2 .2015 SHRI BUNDESH KUMAR MEENA, BHOPAL VS. ITO, 3(1), BHO PAL I.T.A.NO. 104/IND/2015 A.Y.2008-09. 2 2 AFFIDAVIT STATING ON OATH THAT ALL THE RELEVANT PAP ERS FOR PREPARATION OF THE APPEAL WERE WITH THE PREVIOUS CO UNSEL SHRI SHRINIVAS AGRAWAL, C. A., WHICH I COLLECTED WITH HI M AND DELAY OF TWO DAYS OCCURRED IN FILING THE APPEAL. THE AFFI DAVIT OF SHRI SHRINIVAS AGRAWAL, C. A. WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THIS BENCH, WHO STATED ON OATH THAT THE CASE WAS ORIGINALLY HANDLED BY SOME OTHER COUNSEL, HENCE ALL THE PAPERS RELEVANT FOR PR EPARATION OF THE APPEAL WERE NOT AVAILABLE WITH HIM. ON RECEIPT OF THE ORDER, HE EXAMINED THE CASE AND GOT THE OTHER RELEV ANT PAPERS COLLECTED FROM THE ASSESSEE AND COURIERED TO THE CO NSULTANT AT INDORE IMMEDIATELY, WHO ON THE VERY SAME DAY FILED THE APPEAL AND DURING THIS PROCESS THE DELAY OF TWO DAYS HAVE OCCURRED. IT WAS PRAYED TO CONDONE THE DELAY OF TWO DAYS. 3. I HAVE PERUSED THE CONTENTS OF BOTH THE AFFIDAVITS AND FOUND THAT THE DELAY WAS OCCURRED DUE TO REASONABLE CAUSE. I, THEREFORE, CONDONE THE DELAY OF TWO DAYS. 4. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORKS, REPAI RING OF HOUSES, SALE OF ELECTRONICS GOODS FOR PART PERIOD, VEHICLE HIRE CHARGES AND BANK INTEREST. THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDI TION OF SHRI BUNDESH KUMAR MEENA, BHOPAL VS. ITO, 3(1), BHO PAL I.T.A.NO. 104/IND/2015 A.Y.2008-09. 3 3 RS. 9,75,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED U /S 69A OF THE ACT. 5. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED EVIDENCE BEFORE ME THAT RAMESH KUMAR IS HAVING 18.74 ACRES IRRIGATED AGRICULTURAL LAND AT VILLAGE PIPALIA, TEHSIL GHOARGANJ. THE KHASRA OF TH E LAND IS ENCLOSED AT PAGES 30 36 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE AS SESSEE HAS SOLD THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND OUT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN THIS AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CONFIRMATION LETTER, AFFIDAVIT, SUMMA RY OF THE CASH ACCOUNT, COPY OF SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND SALE DEED OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BEFORE ME. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THAT HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR C IT(A). THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE AO AND IT MAY BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IF THE AO DID NO T SATISFY WITH THE ABOVE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. THE LD. DR HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE AO. SHRI BUNDESH KUMAR MEENA, BHOPAL VS. ITO, 3(1), BHO PAL I.T.A.NO. 104/IND/2015 A.Y.2008-09. 4 4 7. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, I AM OF THE VIEW THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL THE PRELIMINARY DOCU MENTS BEFORE ME AND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). UNLESS AND UNT IL, THIS IS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SOURCE OF RS . 9,75,000/- CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED. THE AS SESSEE IS HAVING AMPLE EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTE D TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE A O WITHIN 2 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER AND TH E AO IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 15 TH DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15 TH DECEMBER, 2015. CPU* SHRI BUNDESH KUMAR MEENA, BHOPAL VS. ITO, 3(1), BHO PAL I.T.A.NO. 104/IND/2015 A.Y.2008-09. 5 5 1612