M/s Laxmi Kant Agarwal, Kanpur V. DY. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 192/LKW/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1128 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHARAT AWASTHI
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKAS GARG
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI S UNIL KUMAR YADAV , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 192/LKW/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 - 05 M/S LAXMI KANT AGARWAL 117/H - 2/100, PANDU NAGAR KANPUR V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE V KANPUR PA N: ABDPA9698N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI VIKAS GARG, FCA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI BHARAT AWASTHI, D.R. DATE OF HEARING: 15 02 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16 02 2018 O R D E R THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A), INTER ALIA, ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,95,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BEING AMOUNT OF LOAN RECEIVED FROM RAMESH GOENKA RENU GOENKA H UF THROUGH BANKING CHANNALS. 2. THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE U/R 46A IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT FROM RAMESH GOENKA RENU GOENKA HUF GIVING COMPLETE DETAILS VIZ ADDRESS AND PAN. 3. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 5,32,150 / ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BEING AMOUNT OF LOAN RECEIVED FROM CITI BANK THROUGH BANKING CHANNALS. ITA NO.192/LKW/2017 : - 2 - : 4. THAT THE CIT (APPEALS) KANPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE U/R 46A IN THE FORM OF STATEMENT OF LOAN FROM CITI BANK. 5. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.12,771/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BE ING AMOUNT OF INSURANCE CLAIM RECEIVED. 6. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.18,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF PERQUISITE VALUE OF TELEPHONE PAID FOR BY L. KANT PAPER MILLS LTD. 7. BECAUSE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINS T IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS, LAW AND PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8 . THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND ANY/ALL OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE APPEAL. ANY OTHER GROUND(S) OR RELIEF(S) AS YOUR KIND HONOUR MAY DEEM APPROP RIATE OR FIT UNDER THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES. 2 . DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 14 DAYS IN FILING OF THE APPEAL FOR WHICH APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IS FILED. 3 . HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE AP PLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY, I FIND MERIT THEREIN AND, THEREFORE, I CONDONE THE DELAY AND ADMIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 4 . SO FAR AS GROUNDS ON MERIT ARE CONCERNED, THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED MY ATTENTION TO THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHOR ITIES WITH THE SUBMISSION THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME ASSESSEE COULD NOT PLACE RELEVANT EVIDENCE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITIONS UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE FILED RELEVANT EVIDENCES IN S UPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION ON VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ITA NO.192/LKW/2017 : - 3 - : ASSESSING OFFICER. THE REMAND REPORT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT VERIFYING DETAILED EVIDENCE S FILED BY THE AS SESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) RELYING UPON THE REMAND REPORT CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS. NOW THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS INVITED MY ATTENTION THAT IF THE EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) HAD PROPERLY BEEN EXAMINED, ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WOULD HAVE BEEN DELETED. THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE PRAYED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE , THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR RE - ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUES. 5 . THE LD. D.R. HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 6 . HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, I FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES AND THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). T HE ASSESSING OFFICER , INSTEAD OF EXAMINING THE DETAILED EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, MADE SUMMAR IL Y REPORT TO THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS. THE APPROACH ADOPTED BY TH E LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT APPEARS TO BE PROPER. ONCE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE FILED, HE SHOULD HAVE CALL ED FOR REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO EXAMINE THE SAME AND TO SUBMIT THE REPORT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUBMITTED THE REPORT WITHOUT MAKING DETAILED EXAMINATION OF THE EVIDENCE S AND THE REPORT WAS USED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS. THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) DOES NOT APPEARS TO BE PROPER. I, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO RE - ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER AFFORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO HAVING EXAMINED THE DETAILED EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE IMPUGNED ISSUES. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.192/LKW/2017 : - 4 - : 7 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION ED PAGE. SD/ - [ S U NIL KUMAR Y ADAV ] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16 TH FEBRUARY , 201 8 JJ: 1502 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT(A) 4 . CIT 5 . DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR