The ITO, Ward-9(2), Ahmedabad V. Shri Hardik Satishkumar Sharma, Ahmedabad

ITA 2700/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67834 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P L KUREEL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER ITO, WARD-9(2) AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) VS M/S. HARDIK SATISHKUMAR SHARMA, 402, SAMARTH AVENUE, 48, SARDAR PATEL NAGAR, OPP. HOTEL NEST, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD- 380009 PAN: AQBPS 7578 N (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: SRI P.L. KUREEL, SR.D.R. ASSESSEE BY: NONE DATE OF HEARING : 22-10-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25-10-20 13 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS THE REVENUES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XV AHMEDABAD DATED 26-09-2012. ITA NO. 2700/AHD/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 I.T.A NO. 2700/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ITO VS. M/S. HARDIK SATISHKUMAR SHARMA 2 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE DESPITE THE FACT THAT NOTICE FOR TODAYS HEARING WAS SERVED UPON HIM. WE THEREFORE PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL AFTER HEARING LD. D R. 3. REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE LD. CIT(A)-XV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW A ND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,18,550/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) XV, AHMEDABAD OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS REVENUE HAS FIL ED FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH WAS ADMITTED BEING A LEGAL GROUND WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. THE LD. CIT(A)-XIV, AHMEDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS MENTIONED IN PARA 5(F) & (G) OF THE ORDER IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46 A WITHOUT AFFORDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS VERIFY THE SAME. 5. AFTER HEARING LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED AD DITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM PARA 5 (F) & (G) OF HIS ORDER AND ON T HIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NO COMMENTS OF AO WERE OBTAINED. THUS THERE IS CLEAR VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES ON THE PART OF THE LD. CIT(A), AND THEREFORE WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT MATTER REQUIRES FRESH ADJUD ICATION ON HIS PART AFTER OBTAINING COMMENTS OF THE AO ON THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE ADMITTED BY HIM. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. I.T.A NO. 2700/AHD/2012 A.Y. 2007-08 PAGE NO ITO VS. M/S. HARDIK SATISHKUMAR SHARMA 3 6. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 25/10/2013 AK / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,