Smt Tasneem Dairkee, Neemuch V. The ITO, Neemuch

ITA 141/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2864 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN LD
• Assessee Lawyers: H P VERMA; G B AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SMC-I BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 141/IND/2010 AY: 2005-06 SMT. TASNEEM DAIRKEE NEEMUCH (PAN AMDPD-3422-C) ..APPELLANT V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH ..RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI H.P. VERMA AND SHRI G.B. AGRAWAL DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. APARNA KARAN, LD.SR. DR ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), UJJAIN, DATED 19.1.2010 ON THE GROUND THAT T HE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE ARBITRARY, UNJUST AND THE IMPUGNED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PURCHA SE OF LAND WAS WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AND THAT TOO WITHOUT CONSI DERING THE REGISTERED SALE DEED BEFORE THE SUB-REGISTRAR, WRITTEN SUBMISS IONS/PAPER BOOK AND 2 WITHOUT PROVIDING REMAND REPORT/COMMENTS OF THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE. INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B HAS ALSO BEEN CHALLENGED . 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL I HAVE HEARD SHRI H.P. VERMA ALONG WITH SHRI G.B. AGRAWAL, LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE AN D SMT. APARNA KARAN, LEARNED SR. DR. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENTS ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE REMAND REPORT/COMMENTS OF THE AO WERE N OT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE BY FURTHER SUBMITTING THAT IN THE ABSE NCE OF SUCH CONFRONTATION A GREAT INJUSTICE HAS BEEN CAUSED TO T HE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THIS APPEAL MAY BE R EMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED SR. DR THOUGH STRONGLY DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ALSO CONTENDED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BUT DID NO T PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE REMAND REPORT/COMMENTS OF THE AO WERE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, I HAVE NO OPTION BUT TO REMAND THIS FILE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATI ON IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE REMAND REPORT, IF A NY, BE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE BE ALSO PROVIDED DUE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, BEFORE THE LEARNED AO. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. 3 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESE NCE OF LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSI ON OF THE HEARING ON 20 TH MAY,2010. (JOGINDER SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20.5.2010 COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CIT(A)/DR/GUARD F ILE D/-