Radhika Goel, Parwanoo V. DCIT, CC-II, Chandigarh

ITA 18/CHANDI/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8266 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 07-01-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANDIP DAHIYA CIT
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV DATTA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Set aside

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BE NCH B, CHANDIGARH (VIRTUAL COURT) .., ! '# .. , $ %& BEFORE: SHRI. N.K.SAINI, VP & SHRI , R.L. NEGI, JM ITA NO. 18/CHD/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SMT. RADHIKA GOEL PLOT NO. 29, SECTOR-1 PARWANOO, HIMACHAL PRADESH THE DCIT, CC-II, SECTOR-17E CHANDIGARH PAN NO:AAVPG7966N APPELLANT RESPONDENT !' ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV DATTA, CA #!' REVENUE BY : SHRI SANDIP DAHIYA, CIT $ %! & DATE OF HEARING : 12/01/2021 '()*! & DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12/01/2021 %'/ ORDER PER N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DT. 30/11/2018 OF LD. CIT(A)-3, GURGAON. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE FAC TS OF THE CASE AND IS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT ANY EVIDENC E AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF CIRCUMSTANCES. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9,16,098/- IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED EXCESS JEWELLERY FOUND FROM BANK LOC KER. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUND, THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN APPLYING THE RATE OF JEWELLERY AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH INSTEAD OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 2 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSIONS OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ST ATING THEREIN AS UNDER: SUB:- REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE, 29 OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULE.1963 IN ITA NO.18 /CHANDI/2019/ ASSTT . YEAR 2010-11 .DATE OF HEARING 26.11.2019 RESPECTED SIRS, WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE IS ENCLOSING HEREWITH RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN T HE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP IN SUPPORT OF THE JEWLLERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH INCLUDING IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. THE HON'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP AND HAS ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER MADE AGAINST JEWLLER Y IN THE SETTLEMENT APPLICATION BY THE GROUP THE RELEVANT PAGES OF THE ORDER OF THE HO N'BLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ARE ENCLOSED .IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ORD ER OF THE COMMISSION WAS PASSED SUBSEQUENT TO THE PASSING OF THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE WE REQUEST THE HON'BLE BENCH T O ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND OBLIGE. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY SD/- (RADHIKA GOEL) 4. IN THIS CASE A SEARCH HAD TAKEN PLACE ON 10/03/2016 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2010 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS . 12,57,670/-. HOWEVER, THE A.O. FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 23,10,4 43/- BY MAKING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS. BEING AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHO ALLOWED THE PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE MEANTIME THE ASSESSEES GROUP MOVED TO THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WHEREIN THE DISPUTE HAS BEEN SE TTLED, HOWEVER THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WAS NOT AVAILABLE EITHER TO T HE A.O. OR TO THE LD. CIT(A). 5. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND SUBMITTED THAT, THES E GO TO THE ROOT OF MATTER, THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED BACK TO THE A.O. FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE GROUP TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE BELONGS. 3 6. IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS THE LD. DR DID NOT OBJECT I F THE MATTER IS TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. 7. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIE S AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD, IN OUR OPINION THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NO W FURNISHED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESEE IN THE FORM OF ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE CASE OF THE GROUP TO WHICH ASSESSEE BELONGS GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MA TTER. I, THEREFORE, ADMIT THE SAME AND SINCE THE DOCUMENTS NOW FURNISHED BY THE ASSESS EE WERE NOT AVAILABLE EITHER TO THE A.O. OR TO THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THEIR CONS IDERATION, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. TO BE AD JUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER CONSIDERING THE NEW EVIDENCE NOW FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BY PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12/01/2021 ) SD/- SD/- .. .., (R.L. NEGI ) ( N.K. SAIN I) $ %&/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / VICE PRESIDENT AG DATE: 12/01/2021 (+! ,-.- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. $ / CIT 4. $ / 01 THE CIT(A) 5. -2 45&456789 DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 8:% GUARD FILE