Smt. MALTI SINGHAI, Bhopal V. The ACIT 2(1), Bhopal

ITA 247/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 24722714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: N D PATWA S
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE (SINGLE MEMBER CASE) BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 247/IND/2014 A.Y. : 2008-09 SMT. MALTI SINGHAI ACIT, 2(1), BHOPAL VS. BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO :ACTPS8710N APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASHISH GOYAL AND SHRI N. D. PATWA, ADVOCATES RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 13 . 10 .2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.11 .2015 MALTI SINGHAI, BHOPAL VS. ACIT, BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 2 47/IND/2014-A.Y. 2008-09 2 2 O R D E R THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, BHOPAL, DATED 08.01.2014 FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS RECEIVED LOAN OF RS. 1,60,032/- FROM SMT. RENU AGRA WAL. THE AO HAS TRIED TO VERIFY THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SMT. RENU AGRAWAL, WHO ADVANCED A LOAN OF RS. 1,60,032/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS VERIFIED THE RETURN FILED BY RENU AGRAWA L AND FROM THIS RETURN, THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THAT RENU AGRAWAL HAD NIL CAPITAL. THEREFORE, SHE HAD NO CAPACITY TO GIVE LOA N. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE ME, THE ASSESSE E HAS SUBMITTED PART II OF MALTI DEVI SINGHAI, WHICH WAS NOT SUBMITTED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND COPY OF THE ACCOUNT OF SMT. RENU AGRAWAL WAS NOT SUBMITTED TO THE LOWER AUTHORI TIES AND THESE PAPERS ARE REFLECTING THE BANK TRANSACTION. T HEREFORE, THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY BE ADMITTED AND MATTER MAY BE DECIDED AFRESH. 4. THE LD. DR STRONGLY OBJECTED TO RESTORATION. MALTI SINGHAI, BHOPAL VS. ACIT, BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 2 47/IND/2014-A.Y. 2008-09 3 3 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS NECESSARY FOR PROPER APPRECIATION OF THE ISSUE IN APPEAL AND CAUSE OF SU BSTANTIAL JUSTICE. SUCH EVIDENCE MAY ULTIMATELY TURN OUT TO T HE BENEFIT OF EITHER TAX PAYER OR THE REVENUE. THEREFORE, I AD MIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO T HE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH. 6. GROUND NO.2 IS NOT PRESSED. HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2015. SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 2 ND NOVEMBER, 2015. MALTI SINGHAI, BHOPAL VS. ACIT, BHOPAL, I.T.A.NO. 2 47/IND/2014-A.Y. 2008-09 4 4 CPU* 1314