Shri Alpeshkumar Dashrathbhai Patel,HUF, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-9(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 1311/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9588 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D V SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1311/AHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ALPESHKUMAR DASHRATHBHAI PATEL-HUF 28, MANAVMANDIR SOCIETY, NILKANTH, MAHADEV ROAD, GHATLODIA, AHMEDABAD .. APPELLANT PAN : AAGHA 9515 G VS INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9 (4), AHMEDABAD .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI GAURAV NAHTA , AR REVENUE BY : SHRI D .V. SINGH , DR / DATE OF HEARING 08/01/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03/02/2016 / O R D E R THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-X V, AHMEDABAD DATED 03.12.2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08, ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND:- THE LD. CIT-APPEALS XV AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN PASSING APPELLATE ORDER DATED 03.12.2012 FOR AY 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT BY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,42,300/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIO N U/S 68 OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS.2,42,300/- IN ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007- 08 AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN APPEAL. (SMC) ITA NO. 1311/AHD/2013 ALPESHKUMAR DASHRATHBHAI PATEL-HUF VS. ITO AY 2007-08 2 THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS BEEN THAT I N THE CASE OF ASSESSEE CERTAIN ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE ACT, OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM UNSECUR ED LOANS WERE TAKEN. THE LOWER AUTHORITIES MAINLY DISALLOWE D THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE GENUINENESS AS WELL AS CREDI TWORTHINESS OF THOSE PARTIES WAS NOT PROVED. AT THE TIME OF HE ARING, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE HE HAS FURNISHED CERTAI N ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THIS REGARD, WHICH , INTER ALIA, INCLUDE THE ID PROOF AND COPY OF 7/12 EVIDENCE OF T HE CREDITORS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE COLLECTED AT THE RELEVANT TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS; HENCE COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHO RITIES AS THE ASSESSEE BEING A SMALL PERSON. I FIND THAT THE DOCUMENTS NOW SUBMITTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WOULD GO TO THE R OOT OF THE ISSUE AT HAND. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTI CE AND IN VIEW OF THESE VITAL DOCUMENTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE SE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SHOULD BE ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A). THEREF ORE, THE CIT(A) IS DIRECTED SO AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISS UE AFRESH AFTER TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASS ESSEE. SINCE I AM RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) ON PRELIMINARY (SMC) ITA NO. 1311/AHD/2013 ALPESHKUMAR DASHRATHBHAI PATEL-HUF VS. ITO AY 2007-08 3 ISSUE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, I AM REFRAINING TO COMMEN T ON THE MERIT OF CASE AT HAND. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 3RD FEBRUARY, 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- (SHAILENDRA K. YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 03/02/2016 BIJU T., PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ! ' ' # / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' ' # ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. &'( ! , ' ! , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. (- . / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) !', / ITAT, AHMEDABAD