Sri Venkatachalapathy Ramesh Babu, Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer,Ward7(3), Bangalore

ITA 1204/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90066 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DHIVAHAR J
• Assessee Lawyers: G SATHYANARAYANA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI , JUDICIAL MEMBER A ND SHRI JASON P BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1204 / BANG/20 14 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 0 8 - 09 ) SRI VENKATACHALAPATHY RAMESH BABU, PROP. M/S.PRE CISION AUTO PRODUCTS, NO.13, MAHESWARI NAGAR, WHITEFIELD ROAD, BANGALORE - 560048. APPELLANT PAN: ACAPR 1477 J VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 7(3), BANGALORE. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.SATHYANARAYANA, CA. RESPONDENT BY: S HRI P.DHIVAHAR, JCIT(DR). DATE OF HEARING : 21/07/2015. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30 /07/2015. O R D E R PER SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) , LTU, BANGALORE, DATED 31/07/2014 DISMISSIN G THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL WITHOUT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FI LED BY THE ASSESSE E . 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURE OF TURNED COMPONENTS AND MACHINERIES, FILED HIS RETURN OF I NCOME ON 27/09/2008 ITA NO . 1204 /BANG/20 1 4 SRI VENKATACHALAPATH Y RAMESH PAGE 2 OF 4 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,80,110/ - . DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 [ THE ACT ], THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) CALLED FOR VARIOUS DETAILS BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE ASSES SEE WAS REPRESENTED BY A C.A. WHO FILED CERTAIN DETAILS. ON PERUSAL OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH SCRUTINY NOTICES AND DID NOT FILE ALL THE DETAILS ASKED FOR . HE, THEREFORE, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMEN T ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD BY ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.19,36,230/ - AND BROUGHT IT TO TAX. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) ALONG WITH OTHER DETAILS SUCH AS VOUCHERS FOR RENT PAYMENT, AUD IT REPORT S FURNISHED UNDER THE KARNATAKA VAT ACT, 2003, VAT 100 RETURN FORMS, CONFIRMATION FROM 5 SUNDRY CREDITORS HAVING BALANCE OF MORE THAN RS.25,000/ - AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS FROM THE BOOKS OF M/S.PRECISION AUTO PRODUCTS FOR CONSUMABLE ITEMS, REPAIRS AND M AINTENANCE, TRANSPORTATION CHARGES, TRAVELLING AND CONVEYANCE, VEHICLE MAINTENANCE, STAFF WELFARE, SALARY AND WAGES, OFFICE MAINTENANCE AND HANDLING CHARGES ETC. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THESE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO NOR HAS HE FI LED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN TERMS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL OF THE OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED BY THE AO . T HEREFORE , HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT NON - COMPLIANCE OF THE ASSES SEE BEFORE THE AO IS NOT ACCEPT ABLE . SHE, ITA NO . 1204 /BANG/20 1 4 SRI VENKATACHALAPATH Y RAMESH PAGE 3 OF 4 ACCORDINGLY, DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL WITHOUT ADMITTING TH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. AGGR I EVED, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD ISSUED NOT ICE U/S 143(2) ON 17/08/2009 AND SUBSEQUENTLY ASSESSEE HAD APPEARED AND SOUGHT TIME FOR FURNISHING OF THE DETAILS. IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO GATHER INFORMATION WITHIN THE TIME GRANTED BY THE AO AND THEREFORE HE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND PRAYED THAT THE CIT(A) MAY BE DIRECTED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND RE - CONSIDER THE ISSUE ON MERITS. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, OPPOSED THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. HAVI NG REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BECAUSE OF WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE SA ME. WE AGREE THAT IT IS THE ASSESSEE S RESPONSIBILITY TO FILE ALL THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO , BUT WHEN THE SAME ARE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT , IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE, THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAME ON MERI TS. IN VIEW OF THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR ITA NO . 1204 /BANG/20 1 4 SRI VENKATACHALAPATH Y RAMESH PAGE 4 OF 4 ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND UPON SUCH FILING, THE CI T(A) SHALL FOLLOW DUE PROCESS OF LAW AND DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH JULY, 2015. S D/ - S D/ - (JASON P BOAZ) (SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER EKSRINIVASULU COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGIS TRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL BANGALORE