ITO, Ward - 1(1), Kolkata, Kolkata V. Shri Akhilesh Singh, Howrah

ITA 2290/KOL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 229023514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-06-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 29-12-2010
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K PRAMANIK
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEN CH B, KOLKATA () BEFORE . .. . . .. . , , , , , SHRI B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER. /AND . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , #$ SHRI C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER %& %& %& %& ' ' ' ' / ITA NO . 2290/KOL/2010 () *+/ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 (-. / APPELLANT ) I.T.O., WARD-1(1), KOLKATA - ( - - VERSUS - . (01-./ RESPONDENT ) SHRI AKHILESH SINGH, KOLKATA (PAN: AKUPS 0920 P ) -. 2 3 #/ FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI A.K.PRAMANIK 01-. 2 3 #/ FOR THE RESPONDENT: NONE #4 / ORDER ( (( ( . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . ) )) ), , , , #$ PER SHRI C.D.RAO, AM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 15.09.2010 OF THE CIT(A)-I, KOLKATA PERTAINING TO A.YR. 2006-07. 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.89,45,256/- ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS UNSECURED LOANS BY ACCEPTING FRESH & ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN CONTRAVEN TION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T.RULE, 1962. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND, MODIFY AN D ALTER ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THIS CASE. 3. IN THIS APPEAL NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE A SSESSEE. EVEN IN THE LAST HEARING ON 25.03.2011 ALSO NO ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE DECIDED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING TH E LD. DR. 2 4. THE LD. DR APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE P OINTED OUT THAT AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN. HOWEVER, AT THE APPELLAT E STAGE THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSIONS AND DOCUMENTS FILED IN SUPPORT OF HIS S UBMISSIONS WITHOUT CALLING FOR THE REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 5. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND ON PERUSAL OF MATE RIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, IT IS OBSERVED THAT THOUGH THE AO HAS REQUIRED THE DETAIL S ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY DETAILS EXCEPT THE PAN NO. IN THE CASE OF LOAN CREDITORS OUT OF 11. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE DOCUMENTARY EVID ENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF THE UNSECURED LOANS IN SUPPORT OF THE LOAN CONFIRMA TION. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS AN D DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE OF THE APPELLANT, SHRI RAGHWENDRA KUMAR, STRONGLY REBUTTED THESE OBSE RVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN RETURN SUBMITTED HIS OWN WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS WITH DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION THAT THE LOANS AND ADVANCES TAKEN BY THE PERSONS AND CORPORATES. FROM THE DETAILS FILED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WERE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHE QUES AND THE ASSESSEE WAS REGULARLY INVOLVED IN THESE TRANSACTION WHICH ARE E VIDENT FROM THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE FILED DURING THE COURSE OF APPE AL. AGAIN THE LACONIC NATURE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE LEADS TO THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE AND THAT THERE IS NO SERI OUS REBUTTAL BY THE A.O. TO THE ASSESSEES CLAIM. THESE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS APPEARS UNJUSTIFIED AND UNCALLED FOR AND AS IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. 5.1. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS IT IS EV IDENT THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. DR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DECIDED THE ISSUE WITHOUT OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES , 1962. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) A ND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER LAW AFTER GIVING REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10.06.2011. SD/- SD/- . .. . . .. . , , , , B.R.MITTAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER . .. .!' !'!' !'. .. . , ,, , #$ #$ #$ #$ , C.D.RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ( (( ('$ '$ '$ '$) )) ) DATE: 10.06.2011. #4 2 0& 5#&*6- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI AKHILESH SINGH, 222/1B, G.T.ROAD, BELURMATH, H OWRAH-711202. 2 THE I.T.O., WARD-1(1), KOLKATA 3. THE CIT, 4. THE CIT(A)-I , KOLKATA 5. DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA 1& 0/ TRUE COPY, #4(;/ BY ORDER, DEPUTY /ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES R.G.(.P.S.)