Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
110220114 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 4 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
05-08-2011
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
B
Next Hearing Date
02-08-2011
Assessment Year
2001-2002
Appeal Filed On
11-03-2010
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1102/DEL./2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, VS. SHRI DHARAM BIR KHATT AR, NEW DELHI. 54, SUKH CHAIN MARG, DLF PHASE I, GURGAON (HARYANA). (PAN : AAMPK7881M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SATYEN SETHI, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : MS. PRATIMA KAUSHIK, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS)-I, NEW DELHI DATED 09.12.2009 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UND ER :- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) IS NOT CORRE CT IN LAW AND FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .6,44,570/- MADE U/S 69 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT WITH VALID DO CUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN LAW & FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .1,63,177/- IGNORING ITA NO.1102/DEL./2010 2 THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEES SHARE IN THE IMPUGNED BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS IS ONLY 1/4 TH OF THE TOTAL LOSS. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEN D ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING OF THE APPEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING, THE LEARNED DR SUB MITTED THAT THE CIT (A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SHE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE RELIEF GRANTED IN RESPECT OF THE CARRY FORWARD LOSS IS ALSO NOT BASED ON THE INCOME-TAX RECORDS OF ASSESSEE BUT ON THE BASIS OF INCOME-TAX RECORDS OF OTHER CO-OWNERS. THEREFORE, SHE PLEADED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR NECESSARY VERIFICATION. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, LEARNED AR WAS NOT HAVING ANY OBJECTION. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. CONSIDERING ALL T HESE FACTS, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND RESTORE THE MATT ER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING DE NOVO AFTER HEARING THE ASSE SSEE AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT (A). THE ASSESS EE SHALL ALSO BE AT LIBERTY TO FILE ANY FURTHER DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011. SD/- SD/- (C.L. SETHI) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 5 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2011 TS ITA NO.1102/DEL./2010 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-I, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.
Mehul