M/s. Nabadigant Educational Trust, Bhubaneswar V. ITO, Ward-2(1), Bhubaneswar, Bhubaneswar

ITA 2/CTK/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7845 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-01-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P R MOHANTY
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

P A G E 1 | 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 02 /CTK/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 VENKAT UDAY BHASKAR BORUSU, , COLLEGE ROAD, JAJPUT ROAD, JAJPUR VS. ITO, WARD 1(2), CUTTACK PAN/GIR NO. AGAPB 0195 R (APPELLANT ) .. ( RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.R.MOHANTY , AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SUBHENDU DUTTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 27 / 01 / 20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27 / 01 /20 20 O R D E R PER C.M.GARG,JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), CUTTACK DATED 6.8.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12 . APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FILED U/ R 29 OF ITAT, RULES, 1963 2. LD A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL POSSIBLE AND AVAILABLE DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE AO DID NOT ENTERTAIN THE SAME BY STATING THAT THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT HAS NOT BEEN FILED. HE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS AN ABUNDANT PRECAUTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES PRAYING THAT FIRSTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO BUT THE SAME WAS NOT TAKEN ON RECORD AND NOT CONSID ERED RESULTING INTO ADDITIONS AND THE APPEAL WAS ALSO DISMISSED FOR WANT OF THE SAME. THEREFORE, THE AUTHORITIES BELOW MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER ITA NO.02/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 P A G E 2 | 3 THE SAME AND READJUDICATE THE MATTER. SECONDLY, IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE TH E SAME DUE TO MIS - REPRESENTATION BY THE AR, THEN ALL THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED CONSIDERING THE BONAFIDE OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME A DMITTED EVIDENCES AND ALLOWING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. LD D.R. STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HOWEVER, IN ALL FAIRNESS, ALTERNATIVELY, HE SUBMITS THAT IF IT IS FOUND JUST, PROPER AND NECESSARY, THE DEPART MENT HAS NO SERIOUS OBJECTION IN REMITTING THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ASSESSMENT STAGE 4. THE DOCUMENTS IN PAPER BOOK B ARE ADMITTED AS THE SAME WERE NOT CONSIDERED ON RECORD AND THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED ON THE REASON OF MISREPRESENTATION BY LD A.R. 5. THEREFORE, APPLICATION UNDER RULE 29 OF ITAT RULES, 1963 IS ADMITTED AND THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 27 / 01 /20 20 . S D/ - SD/ - (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) ( CHANDRA MOHAN GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK; DATED 27 / 01 /20 20 B.K.PARIDA, SPS ITA NO.02/CTK/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011 - 12 P A G E 3 | 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER SR . PVT. S ECRETARY ITAT, CUTTACK 1. THE APPELLANT : VENKAT UDAY BHASKAR BORUSU, , COLLEGE ROAD, JAJPUT ROAD, JAJPUR 2. THE RESPONDENT: ITO, WARD 1(2), CUTTACK 3. THE CIT(A) - CUTTACK 4. PR.CIT - CUTTACK 5. DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//