Income Tax Officer-I , Bahraich V. Shri Manish Kumar Gupta , Bahraich

ITA 13/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78525 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AJAI KUMAR
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT BHALLA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B , LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. A. K. GARODIA , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 13/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 INCOME TAX OFFICER - I BAHRAICH V. SHRI. MANISH KU MAR GUPTA CHAWANI BAZAR BAHRAICH PAN: ADQPG5483Q (APP ELL ANT) (RESPONDENT) APP ELL ANT BY: SHRI. AJAI KUMAR, D.R. RESPONDENT BY: SHRI. ROHIT BHALLA, FCA DATE OF HEARING: 27 05 2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 0 5 2014 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV : THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1 . BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) - II, LUCKNOW HAS CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT GOING THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHIC H WAS NARRATED IN THE REMAND REPORT. 2 . BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) - II, LUCKNOW HAS WRONGLY INTERPRETED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 3 . KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE CASE REASON RECORDED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - II, LUCKNOW MA Y BE REJECTED AND ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED. PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 2 - : 2 . APROPOS GROUND NO.1, THOUGH THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN A GROUND THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONFRONTING IT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN GROSS VIOLATION OF TH E PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES, 1962, THEREFORE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) DESERVES TO BE SE T ASIDE, BUT HE COULD NOT POINT OUT EVEN ONE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 . THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATIONS IN THE FORM OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS REPORT THEREON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO SUBMI TTED HIS REPORT TO THE LD. CIT(A). RELYING UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REPORT IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DELETED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . THEREFORE, IT IS NOT PROPER TO SAY THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS ADMITTED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT BESIDES RAISING THIS LEGAL GROUND, THE REVENUE HAS NOT CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON MERIT. IN FACT , IT HAS RAISED GENERA L GROUNDS. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 4 . HAVING GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE WITH A REQUEST FOR ITS ADMISSION AND THE LD. CIT(A) BEFORE ADMITTING THE SAME HAS FORWARDED IT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OBTAINED AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSU E IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE REPORT SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN GROSS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME - TAX RULES. ACCORDINGLY, WE REJ ECT THIS GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 3 - : 5 . SO FAR AS THE OTHER GROUNDS ON MERIT ARE CONCERNED, THE REVENUE HAS NOT RAISED ANY SPECIFIC GROUND ASSAILING THE DELETION OF A PARTICULAR ADDITION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE REVENUE HAS, HOWEVER, RAIS ED GENERAL GROUNDS THAT THE RELIEF ALLOWED BY THE LD. CIT(A) BE REJECTED AND THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED. SINCE THE REVENUE HAS NOT RAISED ANY SPECIFIC GROUND A SSAIL ING ANY PARTICULAR DELETION OF ADDIT ION, IT HAS BECOME DIFFICULT FOR US TO ADJUDICATE A NY PARTICULAR GROUND OF APPEAL. AS PER RULE 8 OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULE, 1963 E VERY MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL SHALL BE WRITTEN IN ENGLISH AND SHALL SET FORTH, CONCISELY AND UNDER DISTINCT HEADS , THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL WITHOUT ANY ARGUMENT OR NARRATIVE; AND SUCH GROUNDS SHALL BE NUMBERED CONSECUTIVELY. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT IS REQUIRED TO SET FORTH CONCISE GROUNDS UNDER DISTINCT HEADS WITHOUT ANY ARGUMENT OR NARRATION. BUT IN THE INSTANT CASE , THE REVENUE HAS NOT RAISED ANY SPECIFIC GROUND UNDER ANY PARTICULAR HEAD ON MERIT. IT HAS RAISED GENERAL GROUNDS WHICH CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED. WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE NO GROUND HAS BEEN RAISED ON MERIT, THE ORDER O F THE LD. CIT(A) ON M ERIT DESERVES TO BE SUSTAINED. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.5.2014. SD/ - SD/ - [ A. K. GARODIA ] [ S UNIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 29 TH MAY , 2014 JJ: 2705 PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ ) : - 4 - : COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR PRINT TO PDF WITHOUT THIS MESSAGE BY PURCHASING NOVAPDF ( HTTP://WWW.NOVAPDF.COM/ )