Ritu Chauhan, Shimla V. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

ITA 1677/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4314 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 28-01-2019
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S PHANI KISHORE
• Keywords: Gift; Period of limitation; Additional evidence; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH , ! . .., # $, %& BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 1677 & 1678/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2010-11 MS. RITU CHAUHAN, ANANDAM VILLA, HORTICULTURE ROAD, SANJAULI, SHIMLA THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE II, CHANDIGARH ./PAN NO: ANNPC5025D / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SH. VISHAL MOHAN, CA ' ! / REVENUE BY : SH. G.S. PHANI KISHORE, CIT DR # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 28.01.2019 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.2 .2019 %'/ ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSE SSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 30.7.2017 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3 , GURGAON [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APP EALS, HENCE, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY TH IS COMMON ORDER. THE FACTS WHICH ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL ARE BEING TAKEN FR OM ITA NO. 1677/CHD/2017. 3. BOTH THE APPEALS, AS PER THE REPORT OF THE REGI STRY, ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION PERIOD OF 59 DAYS. A SEPARATE APPLICATI ON FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED, WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN STATED T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ITA NOS. 1677 & 1678/CHD/2017- RITU CHAUHAN, SHIMLA 2 HANDED OVER THE PAPERS TO HIS C.A. SHRI MANOJ GUPT A FOR FILING THE APPEAL, HOWEVER, THE SAID C.A. COULD NOT FILE THE APPEAL IN TIME AS THE FILE GOT MISPLACED IN THE OFFICE OF THE C.A. DUE TO RUSH OF TAX AUDIT. THAT WHEN THE APPELLANT ENQUIRED ABOUT HIS APPEAL, ONLY THEN HER C.A. MADE ENQUIRY AND THEREAFTER THE PAPERS WERE TRACED AND IMMEDIATELY T HE APPEAL WAS FILED. THE ABOVE PLEA HAS BEEN SUPPORTED WITH THE AFFIDAVI T OF SHRI MANOJ GUPTA, C.A. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THE DELAY IN FIL ING THE APPEALS IS HEREBY CONDONED. 4. ON MERITS OF ITA NO.1677/CHD/2017 , THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONF IRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 7 LACS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') ON THE GROUND THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD FAILED TO ESTABLISH WITH COGENT EVIDENCE THAT SHE HAD RECEIVE D THE GIFT OF RS. 7 LACS FROM HER MOTHER IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 5.2.2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, WHEREIN, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE FACTUM OF THE AFORESAID GIFT BY THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE L D. CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAID EVIDENCES, REJECTED THE APPLIC ATION AND THEREBY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO T HE PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS COPY OF THE APPLICATION FOR THE ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE, WHEREBY, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOUGHT PERMISSION TO PLACE ON RECO RD THE BANK STATEMENT RECORDED ALONGWITH CONFIRMATION RECEIVED FROM THE M OTHER OF THE ASSESSEE AND HAS FURTHER PRAYED THAT THESE EVIDENCES GO TO T HE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND ITA NOS. 1677 & 1678/CHD/2017- RITU CHAUHAN, SHIMLA 3 THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE SAID APPLICATION THAT THE BANK ACC OUNT STATEMENT AND CONFIRMATION OF THE MOTHER WAS NOT AVAILABLE WITH T HE ASSESSEE AT THAT TIME. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT HA S ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE COPY OF THE BANK STATEMENT AND CON FIRMATION OF THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO THE PROD UCED BY THE ASSESSEE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE AND IS VERY ESSENTIAL FOR THE JUST AND PROPER DECISION OF THE CASE, HENCE, IN OUR VIEW, THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTI ON TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND GIVE HIS FINDINGS ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AFTER DULY CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTI CAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1678/CHD/2017 6. THE FACTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ALMOST IDENTICAL OF THAT OF ITA NO. 1677/CHD/2017. IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,60,321/- FOUND CREDITED IN TO THE BANK ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE TH E LD. CIT(A) HAD SOUGHT TO PRODUCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN TH E SOURCE OF THE SAID DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HOW EVER, THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR PRODUCTION OF ADDITION AL EVIDENCES AND THEREBY DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ITA NOS. 1677 & 1678/CHD/2017- RITU CHAUHAN, SHIMLA 4 SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM INSURANCE COMPANY AN D, THEREFORE, HAS SOUGHT TO PRODUCE ON THE FILE THE SURRENDER LETTE R RECEIVED FORM M/S BIRLA SUN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY IN THIS RESPECT AND FURT HER THE COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT ETC. 7. IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS MADE, SINCE TH ESE EVIDENCES GO TO THE ROOT OF THE CASE, HENCE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS SET ASIDE ON SIMILAR TERMS AS DIRECTED ABOVE IN ITA NO . 1677/CHD/2017 AND THE MATTER IN THIS APPEAL IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE F ILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR A DECISION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SD/- SD/- ( . . , # $ / B.R.R. KUMAR) %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 11.02.2019 .. '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR