Gurucharan Yadav, Faizabad V. Income Tax Officer-I, Faizabad

ITA 276/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 83426 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 20-10-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 09-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: O N PATHAK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.276/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 1, FAIZABAD. VS SHRI GURCHARAN YADAV, VILLAGE MAKKHAPUR, DARSHAN NAGAR, DISTT. FAIZABAD. PAN:ABDPY5294N (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI S. K. AGARWAL, ADVOCATE APPELLANT BY SHRI O. N. PATHAK, D. R. RESPONDENT BY 20/10/2014 DATE OF HEARING 11 /12/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - I, LUCKNOW DATED 29/01/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT A REGULAR ASSESSEE AND IS ONLY AGRICULTURIST. HE DOES NOT HAVE ANY OTHER INCOME OTHER THAN AGRICULTURE. 2. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING T HE FACT THAT AS THERE WAS NO COUNSEL AT THE STAGE OF ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH HIS REPLY IN LEGAL MANNER. 2 3. THAT THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF THE AIR INFOR MATION IN POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT. 4. THAT THE REASONS GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT(A) FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ARE FLIMSY, UNJUST AND UNWARRANTED AND WITHOUT SHOWING DUE SYMPATHY TO THE APPELLANT AND THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE. 3. LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME CONTENTIONS WHICH WERE RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHEREAS LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT AS PER GROUND NO . 3 OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED BEFORE US, IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY HIM WITHOUT PROPER REASON. AS PER GROUND NO. 2, THIS IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AT THE S TAGE OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH HIS REPLY IN A LEGAL MANNER. WHEN WE EXAMINE THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WE FIND THAT IN PARA NO. 4, IT IS NOTED BY THE CIT(A) THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF ATTENDED AND HE NEVER CLAIME D AND HE HAS FORMED AN AOP WITH HIS TWO SONS AND SIXTEEN OTHER PERSONS WITH THE INTENTION TO DO THE BUSINESS OF SALE AND PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. IN PARA 4.1 OF HIS ORDER, IT IS NOTED BY CIT(A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY PETITION UNDER RULE 46A SUB STANTIATING THAT HE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE, WHICH WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN IT IS THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE ATTENDED PERSONALLY BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE COULD NOT AVAIL LEGAL ASSISTANCE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY HIM. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER TO HIS F ILE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE A FRESH AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO BRING ON RECORD AND AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO 3 BOTH THE SIDES. THE CIT(A) SHOULD DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND PASS NECESSARY ORDER AS PER LAW. IN VIEW OF OUR DECISION, NO ADJUDICATION IS CALLED FOR ON MERIT OF THE CASE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAG E) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11 /12/2014. *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR