Income Tax Officer Ward-6(2)(5), Bangalore V. Sri Lakur Gopala Nagarajaiah , Bangalore

ITA 1170/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7315 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-11-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PADMA MEENAKSHI
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES B, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K.GARODIA, AM & SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JM ITA NO.1170/BANG/2017 : ASST.YEAR 2012-2013 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 6(2)(5) BANGALORE. SRI LAKUR GOPALA NAGARAJAIAH M/S.YASHWANTH INDUSTRIES NO.130, MACHOHALLI GATE MAGADI ROAD BANGALORE-560 091. PAN : ABOPN7043F. (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SMT.PADMAMEENAKSHI, JCIT RESPONDENT BY : --- NONE --- DATE OF HEARING : 31.10.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT : 03.11.2017 O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K, JM THIS APPEAL AT THE INSTANCE OF THE REVENUE IS DIRE CTED AGAINST THE CIT(A)S ORDER DATED 27.01.2017. THE RE LEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2012-2013. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS FOLLOWS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE CIT(A) ERRED IN DECIDING THE MATTER BASED ON THE FR ESH EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE SUC H EVIDENCES WHICH IS CONTRAVENED TO THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A(3). ITA NO.1170/BANG/2017. SRI.LAKUR GOPALA NAGARAJAIAH. 2 3. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URG ED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT TH E ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER B E RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS:- 3.1 THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO IS ENGAGED I N THE BUSINESS OF STEEL FABRICATION. FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2012- 2013, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 28.08.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.13,79,950. THE ASSESSMENT U/S 14 3(3) WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER DATED 30.03.2015 FIXING THE TO TAL INCOME AT RS.58,35,533. IN COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 1 43(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE FOLLOWING A DDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES :- (I) ADDITION OF RS.31,78,390 ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN STOCK. (II) DISALLOWANCE OF RS.8,57,193 BEING THE DIFFERENCE IN BALANCE FOR SUNDRY CREDITS. (III) ADDITION OF RS.4,20,000 BEING UNSECURED LOANS, WHICH WAS UN-CONFIRMED DURING THE ASSESSMENT. 3.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3 ) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL TO THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY. BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, TH E ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FOR EACH OF THE A DDITIONS / ITA NO.1170/BANG/2017. SRI.LAKUR GOPALA NAGARAJAIAH. 3 DISALLOWANCES. THE CIT(A) ON EXAMINATION OF THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE, DELETED THE ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASS ESSEE. 3.3 THE REVENUE BEING AGGRIEVED HAS FILED THE PRESE NT APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3.4 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO OPPORTUN ITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE SUCH E VIDENCES. HENCE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REST ORED TO THE CIT(A) SO THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3.5 NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOW EVER, WE PROCEEDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL AFTER HEARING TH E LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. 3.6 WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DR AND PERUSED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY IN THIS CASE, THE CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM PARAS 10, 13 AND 14 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CI T(A). RULE 46A(1) CLEARLY ENUMERATES THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND SIT UATIONS WHERE AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE TAKEN ON RECORD . RULE 46A(2) STATES THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES CAN BE TAKE N ON RECORD BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ONLY ON RECORDING THE REASONS FOR ADMISSION OF THE SAME. RULE 46A(3) STIPULATES T HAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD BE ALLOWED REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT THAT IS PRODUCED A S ITA NO.1170/BANG/2017. SRI.LAKUR GOPALA NAGARAJAIAH. 4 ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CALLED FOR ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER T O REBUT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES THAT ARE PRODUCED BEFORE THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THIS IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, WE RESTORE THE A PPEAL TO THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) SHALL CALL FOR A REMAND REPORT F ROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUES THAT ARISE IN THIS APPEAL. NEEDLESS TO STATE, THE CIT(A) SHALL AFFORD REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 03 RD DAY OF NOVEMBER , 2017. SD/- SD/- (A.K.GARODIA) (GEORGE GEORGE K.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE ; DATED :03 RD NOVEMBER, 2017. DEVDAS* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : TRUE COPY BY ORDER, (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT, BANGALORE 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT, BENGALURU. 4. CIT(A)-6, BENGALURU 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 6. GUARD FILE.