Smt Kavitha Chandrashekharaya Hiremath, Bangalore V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Bangalore

ITA 1317/BANG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7025 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DHIVAHAR J
• Assessee Lawyers: S R KIRON
• 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 STAY PETN.NO.227/ BANG /2014 (IN ITA NO.1317/BANG/2014) (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010 - 11) AND ITA NO. 1317 / BAN G/20 14 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 20 1 0 - 11 ) SMT.KAVITHA CHANDRASHEKARAYYA HIREMATH, NO.23/3/1, ADINATH, 3 RD CROSS, 8 TH A MAIN, SADASHIVNAGAR, BANGALORE . PAN:ABNPH1034P PETITIONER/ APPELLANT VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER, WARD 4(1), BANGALOR E. RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY: SHRI S.R.KIRON, CA. REVENUE BY: SHRI P.DHIVAHAR, JCIT(DR). DATE OF HEARING : 1 7 /12/2014 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 /12/2014 . O R D E R PER SMT.P.MADHAVI DEVI, JM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) - II, BANGALORE , DATED 3 1/0 7 /201 4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10 - 11 CONFIRMING VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES AND THE SP NO.227/B/2014 & ITA NO . 1317 /B/2014 SMT.KAVITHA CHANDRASHEKARAYYA HIREMATH. PAGE 2 OF 3 CONSEQUENTIAL ADDITIONS MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TA X ACT, 1961[HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT']. 2. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARLIER BEEN REPRESENTED BY A CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT WHO WAS MORE THAN 80 YEARS OLD AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE PROPERLY REPRESENTED DUE TO WHICH , THERE WAS NO PROPER APPRECIATION OF EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VARIOUS DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED BY THE AO . HE ALSO FILED A PAPER BOOK CONTAINING VARIOUS DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION AND AN AFFIDAVIT DATED 17/10/2014 FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE . HE PRAYED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BE ADMITTED AND THE ISSUE BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, HOWEVER, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 3. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I N SUPPORT OF THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND HENCE NEED TO BE ADMITTED. WE, ACCORDINGLY, ADMIT THE SAME AND SINCE EVEN THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS SP NO.227/B/2014 & ITA NO . 1317 /B/2014 SMT.KAVITHA CHANDRASHEKARAYYA HIREMATH. PAGE 3 OF 3 NOT PROPERTY APPR ECIATED, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO REMAND THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DE NOVO CONSIDERATION. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN VIEW OF OUR ORDER IN PARA.3 ABOVE, THE STAY PETITION B ECOMES INFRUCTUOUS AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST OF DECEMBER, 2014. SD/ - SD/ - (JASON P BOAZ) (SMT. P.MADHAVI DEVI) ACC OUNTANT 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 REGISTRAR INCOME - TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE.