ITO, Agra V. Smt. Renu Jain, Agra

ITA 269/AGR/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2490 (ITAT-AGRA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-03-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.269/AGR/2009 ASST. YEAR: 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER 1(3), VS. SMT. RENU JAIN, AGRA. 9, VALLABH NAGAR, AGRA. (PAN : ACWPJ 5913 F). (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI VINOD KUMAR, JR. D.R. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AMIT GOYAL, ADVOCATE ORDER PER BENCH : THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 20.03.2009 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1(A) THAT THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LA W IN DELETING ADDITION OF ` 11,80,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT ( ` 9,80,000 IN KOTAK MAHENDRA MUTUAL FUND AND ` 2 LAC IN UTI FLOATING RATE MUTUAL FUND) FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES SIMPLY RELYING ON TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE SAID SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE BY CALLING-FOR REMAND RE PORT FROM HIM ; 1(B) THAT THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, AGRA HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE AFORESAID ADDITION BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE (WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE A.O.), WITHOUT ALLOWING THE A.O. A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AS PROVIDED IN RULE 4 6A(3) OF IT RULES, 1962 ; 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR DELETE OR ALTER OR MODIFY ANY ONE OR MORE GROUND(S) OF APPEAL DURING THE APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-I, AGRA BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 2 2. THE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES A ND, THEREFORE, NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE (D.R.) STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 9,80,000/- ON THE BASIS OF AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM WITHOUT C ONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WITHOUT GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AS PROVIDED IN RULE 46A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSU E INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.1(A) MAY BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY FRESH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY, THEREFORE, THE GROUND NO.1(A) RAISED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. HE FURTHER STATED TH AT LETTER DATED 05.12.2008 IS AFTER THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN DISPUTE AND, THEREFORE, COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE ISSUE IN D ISPUTE AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH US. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF LETTER DATED 05.12.2008 WRITTEN BY SHRI ANIL KUMAR JAIN TO THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-1, AGRA WHEREIN VARIOUS INVESTMENTS MADE BY H IM HAVE BEEN DETAILED WITH SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS THEREOF. THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED THE SAME BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO HAS NOT CONFRONTED THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OF FICER AND ALSO HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PROVIDED UN DER RULE 46A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE SAID RULE. IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DELETED THE ADDITION INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.1(A) ON THE BASIS OF LETTER DATED 05.12.2008 WITHOUT CON FRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND 3 WHICH IS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A(3) OF I.T. RULES. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.1(A) TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE T HE SAME AFRESH UNDER LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS ISSUE IS THUS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. AS REGARDS TO THE ADDITION OF ` 2,00,000/- IN UTI FLOATING RATE MUTUAL FUND, AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE AMOUNT IN DISPUTE THAT THE IMPUGNED INVESTMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY HER THROUGH HER ACCOUNT IN UTI BANK, SANJAY PLACE BRANCH, AGRA AND THE RELEVAN T EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SAME HAS ALSO BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH H AS RIGHTLY BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BY DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,00,000/-. WE AGREE WITH THE SAME BY UPHOLDING THE FINDING OF LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHOR ITY ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. THIS ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THUS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.03.2011) SD/- SD/- (P.K. BANSAL) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: AGRA DATE: 1 ST MARCH, 2011 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT BY ORDER 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (APPEALS) CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA BENCH, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSIST ANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA TRUE COPY