Shri Nair Girjaben Baburaj, Anand V. The Income tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

ITA 2413/AHD/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1995 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 14-12-2009
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 21-11-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C K MISHRA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N.PHAUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2413/AHD/2005 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2002-03 DRAFTEED:15.12.09 SHRI NAIR GIRJABEN BABURAJ, 1, SON HARI KUNJ SOCIETY, NEAR GANESH CHOKDI, ANAND PAN NO.ACRPN291F V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, ANAND (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- WRITTEN SUBMISSION RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI C.K.MISHRA, SR. DR DATE OF ORDER RESERVED: 14/12/2009 O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS)-IV, BARODA IN APPEAL NO.CAB/IV- A-52/05-06 DATED 21-09-2005. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD-1, ANAND U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO A S THE ACT) VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 18-03-2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. THE FOLLOWING THREE ISSUES, I.E. DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY & MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES AT RS.22,920/-, ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CA SH DEPOSIT U/S.68 OF THE ACT OF RS.8 LAKH AND TREATING AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOM E FROM OTHER SOURCES AMOUNTING ITA NO.2413/AHD/2005 A.Y. 2000-03 SH. NAIR G BABURAJ V. ITO WD-1, ANAND PAGE 2 TO RS.1,30,550/-. FOR THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE EFFECTIVE THREE GROUNDS AS UNDER:- 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.22,920/- ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY AN D MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.8,00,000/- U/S.68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BEING ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.1,30,550/- TREATING AGRICULTURAL INC OME AS ALLEGED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THE RELEVANT APPLICATION READS AS UND ER:- WITH REFERENCE TO ABOVE WE STATE THAT WE WOULD LIK E TO SUBMIT AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT OF SIVARANAN WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER OUR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AND FROM WHOM WE HAD RECEIV ED A SUM OF RS.2,00,550/- TOWARDS CURRENT YEAR OUTSTANDING AGRICULTURAL INCOM E. WE FURTHER STATE THE AFFIDAVIT COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS THE CONCERNED PERSON WAS STAYING IN KERALA AND DUE TO L ACK OF TIME AS WELL AS LACK OF PROPER ADVICE THE AFFIDAVIT COULD NOT BE PR EPARED. AS THE MATTER BEING OF ADDITION U/S.68 WE REQUEST YOUR GOODSELF TO KIND LY ACCEPT THE AFFIDAVIT AS IT CONTAINS THE ACCEPTANCE BY THE PERSON WHO HAS GIVEN THE MONEY THEREFORE IT WILL BE AN IMPORTANT DOCUMENT FOR THE DISPOSAL OF T HE APPEAL. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE ON ACCOUNT OF THESE ISSUES OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOM E. WHEN A QUERY WAS RAISED, THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STATED THAT THI S CAN BE ADMITTED AND THE ISSUES BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER, SO THAT HE CAN EXAMINE THE VERACITY OF THESE DOCUMENTS AS WELL AS FURTHER EXAMINE THE I SSUE AFRESH AFTER TAKING THESE EVIDENCES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED WRI TTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE US AND MADE ARGUMENT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE ASSESSEES WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ALSO REQUIRE EXA MINATION AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCES OF THE CULTIVATOR WHO WAS LOOKING AFTER T HE LAND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE CREDI TOR AND THE SAME BEING NEW EVIDENCE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN ENTERITY ALL T HE THREE ISSUES REQUIRE RE-VERIFICATION AT THE LEVEL OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF ITA NO.2413/AHD/2005 A.Y. 2000-03 SH. NAIR G BABURAJ V. ITO WD-1, ANAND PAGE 3 ASSESSING OFFICER AND AO IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE THES E ISSUES AFRESH AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL RELEVANT FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 23/12/2009 SD/- SD/- (A.N.PHAUJA) (MAHAVIR SINGH) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 23/12/2009 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-IV, BARODA 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD