The Income Tax Officer Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore V. Shri M R Palaniyappan , Bangalore

ITA 1642/BANG/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0773 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 17-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SIDDAPP A JI R N
• Assessee Lawyers: GURUSWAMY H IT P
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P BOAZ , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 16 4 2 /BANG/201 8 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 4 - 1 5 THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(3)(2), BENGALURU. VS. SHRI. M. R. PALANIYAPPAN, NO. 487, 10 TH CROSS, SADASHIVANAGAR, BENGALURU 560 080. PAN : A HUPP 8124 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI. SIDDAPPAJI, R N, ADDL. CIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. GURUSWAMY H, IT.P DATE OF HEARING : 1 1 . 0 9 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05 . 10 .201 8 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), INTER ALIA , ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN PASSING THE ORDER WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF IT RULES. 3. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, TO AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 1642/BANG/2018 PAGE 2 OF 2 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012-13 AND 2013-14, THE MATTER WAS RESTORED BACK TO THE AO FOR READJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES IN THE LIGHT OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). COPIES OF THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL ARE PLACED ON RECORD. 3. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY, ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED AND THE SAME WAS TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE CIT(A) WHILE GRANTING RELIEF. MOREOVER, THE ISSUE REQUIRES PROPER ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF CERTIFICATES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF CERTIFICATES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- BANGALORE. DATED: 5 TH OCTOBER, 2018. /NS/* COPY TO: 1. APPELLANTS 2. RESPONDENT 3. DR (ITAT) 4. CIT 5. CIT(A) 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE. ( JASON P BOAZ ) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER