M/s. Master Industries, Distt.Ferozepur V. The Income-tax Officer, Ferozepur

ITA 132/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6082 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 132(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 PAN: AABFM2757P M/S MASTER INDUSTRIES, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, MAMDOT, DIST. FEROZEPUR WARD-III(1), FEROZEPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. P.N. ARORA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 24.04.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 09.05.2014 ORDER 1) THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 20.12.2013 PASSED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFIR MING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. OF ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME A T RS. 4,12,200/- AS AGAINST INCOME DECLARED AT RS. 8,343/ - IN THE RETURN FILED. 2) THAT LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,83,857/- IN BARDANA ACCOUNT WITHO UT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 3) (I) THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION MADE UNDER RULE 46A FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AS THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BE FORE THE A.O. THE EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO THE GROUND O F APPEAL. 2 (II) ALTERNATIVELY, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOV E SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL RULE 46A(4) EMPOWERS THE CIT(A) T O ADMIT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. SECTION 250(4) OF THE INCO ME TAX ACT ALSO EMPOWERS THE CIT(A) TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRY BEFORE DISPOSING OFF THE APPEAL. 4) THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN C ONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNVOUCHE D EXPENSES. 5) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOS ED OFF. 2) FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES; THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT T HE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3) AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MAINLY ONE GROUND THAT THE ADDITION OF R S. 3,83,857/- IN BARDANA ACCOUNT HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT PROVIDING PRO PER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IT W AS STATED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILE D AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 FOR ADMISSIO N OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL TO DECIDE TH E ISSUE IN DISPUTE BUT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS SUMMARILY REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT APPLYING ITS MI ND AND HE REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ACCEPTED AND LEARNED CIT(A) MAY BE DIRECTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH 3 UNDER THE LAW AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AS SESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF LEARNED C IT(A), BATHINDA. 4) I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE LEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATE D 25.04.2013 REQUESTED FOR ADDUCING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. BUT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY STATED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AT NO STAGE, REFUSED TO ADMIT AN Y EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T BEEN ABLE TO MAKE OUT ANY CASE THAT IT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CA USE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS CALLED TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER EXCEPT STATING THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ACCEPTE D IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND HE REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. 5) I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL A S THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY LEARNED COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE IN THE SHAPE OF SMALL PAPER BOOK, CONTAINING PAGES FROM 1 TO 19, IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 12.12 .2013 FILED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A)- BATHINDA; COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSIO N DATED 04.02.2013 FIELD BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A)- BATHINDA; COPY OF WRIT TEN SUBMISSION DATED 15.01.2013 FILED BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A)-BATHINDA; CO PY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 23.09.2011 FILED BEFORE LEARNED CI T(A), BATHINDA; 4 COPY OF CONFIRMATION FROM M/S KALAWANTI ENTERPRISES ALONGWITH CHEQUE DEPOSIT IN OBC BANK IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FIRM; C OPY OF LEDGER A/C OF OBC, JALALABAD IS INDICATING THE RECEIPT OF SAID PA YMENT; COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 21.11.2010 FILED BEFORE LEARNED CI T(A)-BATHINDA; COPY OF WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 15.11.2010 FILED B EFORE LEARNED CIT(A)-BATHINDA; COPY OF BARDANA A/C ALONG-WITH BIL LS OF BARDANA SOLD TO M/S KALAWANTI ENTERPRISES DURING THE YEAR; COPY OF LEDGER A/C OF M/S. KALAWANTI ENTERPRISES SHOWN THAT CHEQUES DULY ENTERED IN THE ACCOUNT BOOKS; COPY OF CONFIRMATION FOR M/S KALAWAN TI ENTERPRISES DATED 09.06.2010; AND POWER OF ATTORNEY. 6) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBST ANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITY, ESPECIALLY BEFORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS WRONGLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSES SEE UNDER RULE 46 OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED B Y THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BE FORE THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. NO DOUBT, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT IT MAY BE SOME REASON THAT PREVENTED HIM TO FILE THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. BUT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT 5 BE DEPRIVED FOR ESTABLISHING ITS CLAIM BEFORE THE L EARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY WAY OF FILING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE REFORE, I ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE TH E LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND DIRECT THE LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY TO CONSIDER THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUT E AFRESH UNDER THE LAW AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7) IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, AS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH MAY, 2014 SD/./- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 9 TH MAY, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: M/S MASTER INDUSTRIES, MAMDOT, DIST. FEROZEPUR 2. ITO, WARD-III(1), FEROZEPUR 3. THE ACIT, 4. THE CIT(A), 5. THE CIT, 6. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.