Shri Pawan Kumar, Meerut V. ITO, Baraut

ITA 2503/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7024 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA

Judgement Text

I.T.A .NO.-2503/DEL/2016 PAWAN KUMAR VS ITO IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-II NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-2503/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) PAWAN KUMAR, C/O-VINOD KUMAR GOEL, 282, BOUNDARY ROAD, CIVIL LINES, MEERUT-250001. PAN-DGKPK9726A ( APPELLANT) VS ITO, BARAUT. (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SH. F.R.MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING 10 . 11 .2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12 . 01 .201 7 ORDER THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2016 OF CIT(A), MEERUT PERTAINING TO 200910 ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE QUANTUM APPEAL MAY BE ADJ OURNED AS APPEAL AGAINST THE PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) IS ALSO PENDI NG BEFORE THE ITAT. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE QUANTUM APPEAL CAN BE DECIDED WITHOUT LINK ING THE SAME WITH THE PENALTY APPEAL, THE SAID REQUEST WAS REJECTED AND IT WAS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO PROCEED WITH THE PRESENT APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE-APPELLANT ON MERIT AFTER HEARING THE LD. SR. DR. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ON THE B ASIS OF AIR INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS IN HIS BACK AC COUNT. AS PER THE TWO-PAGE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO HAVE STATED THAT HE WAS AN AGRICULTURIST AND THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF SALE OF HIS AGRICULTURAL LAND OF RS.4 LAKHS AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.37 LAKHS WAS EXPLAINED AS HIS ACCUMULA TED AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO SUBMIT THE BANK ACCOUNT ST ATEMENT AND COPY OF SALE DEED. CONSIDERING THE SAME THE DEPOSITS OF RS.4. WAS ACCE PTED AS EXPLAINED. DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE ACCUMULATED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.37 LAKHS WAS SOUGHT PAGE 2 OF 2 I.T.A .NO.-2503/DEL/2016 PAWAN KUMAR VS ITO SINCE DESPITE OPPORTUNITY IT WAS NOT FILED. ADDITI ON OF RS.37 LAKHS AS INCOME UNDER SECTION 69A WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY AN ORDER P ASSED UNDER SECTION 144/147. 4. THE ASSESSEE CAME IN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY AND SOUGHT TO FILE FRESH EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF FRESH EVIDENCE NOTING THAT AMPLE OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSE E. THE OBJECTION WAS OPPOSED BY THE ASSESSEE STATING THAT THE LAST NOTICE IS DATED 24.0 2.2014 GIVING TIME TO THE ASSESSEE LIVING IN A REMOTE AREA TO FILE ITS REPLY BY 27.02.2014 AN D PASSING THE ORDER ON 28.02.2014. THE INFORMATION SOUGHT TO BE PLACED ON RECORD WAS STATE D TO HAVE BEEN OBTAINED BY FILING AN RTI APPLICATION TO THE BANK AND ON 10/03/2016, THE SAID INFORMATION WAS PLACED BEFORE THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE SAID EVIDENCE HAS NOT BEEN FILED BY A PETITION UNDER RULE 46A, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT EVIDENCE CANNOT BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. ACCORDINGLY, AFTER HEARING THE LD. S R.DR, THE ADJOURNMENT PETITION MOVED WAS REJECTED AND IT WAS CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADMIT THE EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO RELY UPON AND THEREAFTER DECIDE THE ISSUE IN ACCORD ANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT AFTER ADMITTING THE FRESH EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESS EE SEEKS TO RELY IN ITS SUPPORT IS TO BE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER CONFR ONTING THE REMAND REPORT TO THE ASSESSEE, IS REQUIRED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH OF JANUARY 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI