M/s Mahangar Nagrik Sahakari Bank Mydt., Bhopal V. THE ACIT-3(1), Bhopal

ITA 271/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5330 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MOHD JAVED
• Assessee Lawyers: P K JAIN
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE .., .., % BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MAHANAGAR NAGRIK BANK MYDT., BHOPAL .. ./ PAN: AAAAM-4388M VS. ACIT, 3(1), BHOPAL / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY SHRI P.K.JAIN, C. A. / RESPONDENT BY SHRI MOHD. JAVED, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 19.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.12.2016 / O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-2, BHOPAL [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] DATED 12.01 .2016 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 AS AGAINST APPE AL .. . / I.T.A. NO. 271/IND/2016 %' ' / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 I.T.A.NO. 271/IND/2016 A.Y.2012-13 M/S. MAHANAGAR NAGRIK SAH. BANK MYDT.,BHOPAL. PAGE 2 OF 4 DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) OF T HE ACT DATED 03.03.2015 OF ACIT, 3(1),, BHOPAL [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE AO]. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS WITHDRAWN GROUNDS NO. 1 TO 4. HENCE, THE SAME ARE TREATED AS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN . 3. GROUND NOS. 5 & 6 RELATE TO ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,00 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNPAID PROVISION FOR SUBSCRIPTION TO JILA SAHKARI SANGH AND RS. 94,700/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNPAID PROVISI ONS FOR DICGC PREMIUM ON WHICH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED UNDER RULE 46A WERE NOT ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT AND O NE INTERNAL VOUCHER FOR RS. 1,93,896/-. HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE NOT ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) . HENCE, ACCORDING T O HER, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PREVENTED TO FURNISH THE SAME BEFO RE THE AO. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED A PROOF REGARDING PAYMENT OF DICGC PREMIUM TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,05, 300/- IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE AMOUNT AS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS MADE. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR NON-ADMITT ING THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 6. THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON T HE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. I.T.A.NO. 271/IND/2016 A.Y.2012-13 M/S. MAHANAGAR NAGRIK SAH. BANK MYDT.,BHOPAL. PAGE 3 OF 4 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE PAPER COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO DUE TO PAUCITY OF TIME COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT THE AO DID NOT REQUIRE TH E ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THESE PAPERS, WHEREAS SUCH PAPERS WERE PRO DUCED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIS-REGARDED THE CLAIM. WE FIND THAT THE RULE 25 OF INCOME TAX A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, IS PARI MATERIA WITH ORDER 41 RULE 27 OF THE CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE 1908. THEREFORE, IT IS WITH IN DISCRETION OF THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW PRODU CTION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, IF THE SAID AUTHORITY REQUIRES ANY DOCUMENTS TO ENABLE IT TO PASS ORDER OR FOR ANY FUR THER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ADMITTED THE SAME A S THESE ARE THE CRUCIAL DOCUMENTS, WHICH ENABLES THE APPELLATE A UTHORITY TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. OUR VIEW TO ALLOW ADM ISSION OF SUCH EVIDENCE FOR ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL IS ALSO S UPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS. KUMAR SATYA SETHI, (1983) 143 ITR 486 (MP) AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHALIGRAM PREMNATH REPORTED IN (198 9) 179 ITR 239 ( P & H ). THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIC E, WE DIRECT THE LD. CIT(A) TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DECIDE THE APPEAL IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORDINGLY, THE ABOVE TWO GROUND S OF APPEAL ARE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) F OR FURTHER ADJUDICATION. I.T.A.NO. 271/IND/2016 A.Y.2012-13 M/S. MAHANAGAR NAGRIK SAH. BANK MYDT.,BHOPAL. PAGE 4 OF 4 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE 22 ND DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- (..) (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (..) (O.P.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * / DATED : 22 ND DECEMBER, 2016. CPU* 19