Mahesh Manohar Andhari, Sindhudurg V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1862/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9471 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 13-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ALOK MALVIYA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . . . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO. 1862/PUN/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 MAHESH MANOHAR ANDHARI, A/P. SOMWAR PETH, TALUKA MALVAN, DIST. SINDHUDURG 416 606 PAN : ABHPA 5339C . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, WARD - 2(3 ), KUDAL . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. PURANIK REVENUE BY : SHRI ALOK MALVIYA / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR DATE D 13-08-2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE SOLITARY GROUND WHICH NEEDS ADJUDICATION IS AS UNDER : WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, BOTH THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(APPEALS) WERE COR RECT IN CONCLUDING THAT, PART CONSIDERATION OF RS.7,85,000/- SHOWN AS PAYABLE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31 ST MARCH, 2011 ARE WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND HENCE IT IS LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS INCOME, IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE O F LAND, MERELY BASED ON RECITALS IN THE SALE DEED THAT ENTIRE CONSIDERAT ION WAS PAID, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT THE ACTUAL PAYMENTS ARE DONE IN FOLLOWING FINANCIAL YEARS BY CHEQUE. / DATE OF HEARING :24.05.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.05.2017 2 ITA NO.1862/PUN/2014 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER AND ALSO ENGAGED IN FISH TRADI NG. HE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,87,950/-. AS SESSMENT U/S.143(3) WAS COMPLETED DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.40,26, 350/-. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT. IN THE F IRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ADDITION OF RS.7,85,000/- IS ONE OF THE ADDITIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT. 4. NARRATING THE FACTS SHRI S.N. PURANIK, LD. COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED LAND FROM THE LAND OWNERS AND CLAIMED PAYABLE SUM OF RS.7.85 LAKHS IN THE BALANCE SHEET. HOWEVER, IN THE REGISTERED DEEDS, IT IS MENTIONED THAT ENTIRE CONSIDERATION WA S PAID. THUS, THERE IS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT IS STATED IN REGISTRATION D EEDS AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THESE DUES AMOUNTING TO RS.7.85 LAKHS WAS SUBSEQUENTLY PAID TOO. THERE IS EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME. HOWEVER, THE SAME IS FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN THIS REGARD, ASSESSEE FILE D AFFIDAVITS OF MR. NARAYAN CHAVAN AND MR. GHANSHYAM CHANDRAKANT ZAD. ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE TRANSLATED COPIES OF THE SAID AFFIDAVITS UNIFORMLY DATED 21-07-2014. ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED RECEIPTS SIGNED BY THE RECIPIENTS, B ANK DETAILS, CHEQUE NOS. ETC., THESE PAPERS WERE FURNISHED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFO RE THE CIT(A). BUT, THE SAME WERE NOT ENTERTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IN ADJUDICATION. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN THIS REGARD. IN THE BACKGROUND OF THE ABOVE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE REVENUE SUBMI TTED THAT IT IS A FACT THAT NO REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE CIT(A), IN A WAY, THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WERE NOT IMP LEMENTED BY THE CIT(A). 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERING THE REQUEST OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T THE SAID DOCUMENTS, FURNISHED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE CIT(A), SHO ULD HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO THE 3 ITA NO.1862/PUN/2014 FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ENQUIRING INTO TH E CORRECTNESS, GENUINENESS AND ADMISSIBILITY, IF ANY, OF THE SAID PAPERS AND FIGUR ES. IT IS THE REQUIREMENT OF THE LAW THAT REMAND REPORT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CALLED FOR BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHEN THE SAME ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A ND NOT REJECTED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DOES NOT INDICATE WHETHER THE SAID PAPERS WERE ADMITTED OR OTHERWISE. CONSIDERING THE SAME, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WILL CONTRIBUTE TO PROPER ADMINISTRATION OF THE JUSTICE. THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADMIT THE SAME AND ENQUIRE INTO THE SAME AND MAKE FRESH ASSESSMENT ON THIS ISSUE AFTER MEETING T HE REQUIREMENT OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 26 TH DAY OF MAY, 2017. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 26 TH MAY, 2017. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // //TRUE COPY// /ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , / ITAT, PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) , KOLHAPUR 4. CIT , KOLHAPUR 5. , , B BENCH / DR, ITAT, B BENCH PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE.