The ITO, Ward-3, Mehsana V. Shri Dharmendra Shankerlal Patel,

ITA 2973/AHD/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5680 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2010
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-07-2007
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K M MAHESH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 143(1); 251; 143(2); 144; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH 'C' [BEFORE S/SHRI T K SHARMA,JM & A N PAHUJA,AM] ITA NO.2973/AHD/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:-2004-05) INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PATAN WARD-3, 2 ND FLOOR, APOLLO ENCLAVE, HIGHWAY, MEHSANA V/S SHRI DHARMENDRA SHANKERLAL PATEL, PROP. OF SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK ROADWAYS, 16, KRISHNANAGAR SOCIETY, KUKARWADA [PAN: AKHPP 0589 J] [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] REVENUE BY :- SHRI K M MAHESH, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY:- SHRI PRITESH SHAH, AR O R D E R A N PAHUJA: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 16- 04-2007 OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS)-XXI, AHMEDABAD, RAI SES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF TRUCK HIRE CHARGES PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO RS.1,00,000/- AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS.5,00,000/- 1.1 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIA TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE ALL THE VOUCHERS FOR VERIFICATION. 2 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.48,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF NO WITHDR AWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIA TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NEVER FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF HIS OWN FAMILY MEMBERS, THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME PURPORTE D TO HAVE BEEN EARNED BY THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE WHO IS STATED TO BE A MEMBER OF THE HUF INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE. 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE FURTHER APPRECIATED THAT THE IT WAS NEVER ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT HE IS STAYING IN JOINT FAMILY AND THOUGH HE IS NOT A HOLDER OF THE LAND WAS ENTITLED FOR THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNE D BY HIS BROTHER EVEN FOR HIS PERSONAL EXPENSES. ITA NO.2973/AHD/2007 FOR AY 2004-05 DHARMENDRA SHANKERLAL PATEL 2 2.3 THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THAT TH E HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE WAS MET OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE'S BROTHER IS NOT BASED ON ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED AT TH E TIME OF ASSESSMENT. 2.4 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE THE LEARNED CIT( A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.48,000/- FOR A YEAR WHICH COMES TO AVERAGE RS.4,000/- ONLY PER MONTH AND EVEN AFTER CONSIDERING THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE/INCOME THE SAME WAS REQUIR ED FOR THE PERSONAL EXPENDITURE OF EVEN A SMALL A FAMILY. 2.5 THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE ASCERTA INED FROM THE ASSESSEE THE EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED B Y THE FAMILY AND THE NET SURPLUS CAPITALIZED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONS IDERATION. 3 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S.68 OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS .5,96,393/-. 3.1 THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIA TED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THE CONFIRMATION AT THE T IME OF ASSESSMENT AND HE HAS ALSO FAILED TO GIVE AN OPPORT UNITY TO THE A.O. FOR VERIFYING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE I N REGARD TO THE NEW EVIDENCE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM. 4 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE CIT(APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE A.O. 5 IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEAR NED CIT (APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE A.O. BE RESTORED T O THE ABOVE EXTENT. 2 ADVERTING FIRST TO GROUND NO.1 & 1.1 IN THE APPEA L RELATING TO REDUCTION OF ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF T RUCK HIRE CHARGES TO RS. 1 LAC, FACTS ,IN BRIEF, AS PER RELEVANT ORDE RS ARE THAT RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.2,39,330/- FILED ON 29-10-20 04 BY THE ASSESSEE, ENGAGED IN TRANSPORT OF CEMENT FOR M/S GU JARAT SIDDHI CEMENT LTD., VERAVAL WITH HIRED TRUCKS, AFTER BEING PROCESSED ON 18- 3-2005 U/S 143(1) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 [HERE INAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT], WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY WITH TH E ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 18.3.2005. THIS IS THE FIRST Y EAR OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHEN HE DISCLOSED TURNOVER OF RS.2,26 ,60,031/-. SINCE ITA NO.2973/AHD/2007 FOR AY 2004-05 DHARMENDRA SHANKERLAL PATEL 3 THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE RELEVANT BILLS/VOUCHER S IN SUPPORT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO U/S 144 OF THE ACT. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED TRANSPORT INCOME OF RS.2,26,37,664/- AND TRANSPORT RENT(HIRE) EXPENSES OF RS.2,19,04,744/-. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OWN ANY TRUC K AND INSTEAD HIRED TRUCKS TO CONDUCT HIS BUSINESS. SINCE THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE VOUCHERS AND OTHER RELATED INFORMATION/DOCU MENTS IN RESPECT OF THESE EXPENSES, CONSIDERING THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE COMPARABLE CASES, THE AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT O F RS.5,00,000/- OUT OF TRANSPORT EXPENSES. HOWEVER, D ETAILS OF THESE COMPARABLE CASES WERE NOT CITED IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. 2.1. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS FOR TRUCK HIRE WERE SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS AND THIS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN THE AUDIT REPORT U/S 44AB FILED WITH THE RETURN. THE AO DIS ALLOWED LUMP SUM AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/- OUT OF TRUCK RENT PAYMENT WITHOUT TAK ING INTO CONSIDERATION THE NOTE IN THE AUDIT REPORT NOR EVEN DISCLOSED THE NAMES OF COMPARABLE PARTIES . IN THE LIGHT OF THESE SUBMISSIONS, THE LD. CIT(A) CONCLUD ED THAT THERE WAS NO INDICATION THAT THE TRANSPORT RENT EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEE WERE ON HIGHER SIDE AS COMPARED TO THE OTHER CASES WHILE PAYMENTS WERE FOU ND SUPPORTED BY THE VOUCHERS. SINCE MANY VOUCHERS WERE NOT BEARING FUL L DETAILS OF THE TRUCK RENTED AND THE OWNER OF THE TRUCK ETC., THE LD. CIT(A) RED UCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.1,00,000/-. 3. GROUND NOS. 2 TO 2.5 RELATE TO AN AMOUNT OF R S. 48,000/- TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. ON VERIFICATION OF ASSE SSEES CAPITAL ACCOUNT, THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT M AKE ANY WITHDRAWAL FOR HIS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. TO A QUERY B Y THE AO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPIES OF SOME 7/12 EXTRACTS OF AGRICULTURE LAND OWNED BY HIS RELATIVES AND CONTENDED THAT HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES WERE MET FROM THE SAID AGRICULTURAL INCOME. SINCE THE AS SESSEE DID NOT ITA NO.2973/AHD/2007 FOR AY 2004-05 DHARMENDRA SHANKERLAL PATEL 4 HAVE ANY AGRICULTURE LAND IN HIS OWN NAME OR IN THE NAME OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS NOR DISCLOSED SOURCES OF MEETING HIS PERSONAL AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, THE AO ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.48 ,000/- TOWARDS SUCH EXPENSES . 3.1. ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED HE HAD MET H IS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OUT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME BELONGING TO THE HUF, CONSISTING ALONG WITH HIS BROTHER AND PRODUCED EXTRACT OF PANI PATRAK IN FORM 7/12 AND 8 ,IN THE NAME OF HIS BROTHER. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS PLEADED THAT TH E ADDITION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE LD. CIT(A) ACCEPTED THESE CONTENTIONS WITHOUT HAVI NG ANY INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES OR CONFRONTING THE DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM TO THE AO AND DELETED THE ADDITION. 4. GROUND NOS.3 & 3.1 RELATE TO AN ADDITION OF R S.5,96,393/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT. ON VERIFICATION OF THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, THE AO FOUND THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.14,000/- WAS CLAIMED AS INTEREST PAID TO TWO CREDITORS NAMELY M/S. M.D. TRANSPORT-RS.6,500/- AND M/S. S.R. ROADWAYS-RS.7500/-. TO A QUERY BY THE AO, THE ASSES SEE CLAIMED THAT THESE TWO PARTIES WERE CREDITORS FOR TRANSPORT EXPENSES AND WERE NOT CREDITORS FOR UNSECURED LOANS WHILE THE PA YMENT OF INTEREST WAS FOR DELAYED PAYMENT. HOWEVER, THE AO DID NOT AC CEPT THESE SUBMISSIONS, NO SUCH PAYMENT OF INTEREST HAVING BEE N TO ANY OTHER CREDITOR. EVEN REQUEST MADE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 19.12.2006 FOR FILING CONFIRMATION FROM THE AFORESA ID PARTIES, WAS NOT RESPONDED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT ANY CO NFIRMATION OF THE AFORESAID TWO PARTIES NOR ESTABLISHED THE GENUI NENESS OF TRANSACTIONS, THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,25,16 9/- IN THE NAME OF M/S. M.D. TRANSPORT AND RS.2,71,224/- IN THE NAM E OF M/S. S.R. ROADWAYS BY WAY OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS, HAVING RECOURSE TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2973/AHD/2007 FOR AY 2004-05 DHARMENDRA SHANKERLAL PATEL 5 4.1 ON APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE WHILE REITERATING THEIR CONTENTIONS BEFORE THE AO, SUBMITTED CONFIRMATIONS OF THE TWO P ARTIES IN SUPPORT OF INTEREST. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE CONFIRMATIONS, T HE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE FOLLOWING TERMS: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE OUTS TANDING AMOUNT OF RS.3,25,169/- IN THE NAME OF M/S M D TRANSPORT AND RS.2,71,224/- IN THE NAME OF S R ROADWAYS WAS FOR THE UNPAID TRANSPORT EXPENSES. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL THE APPELLANT HAS FILED CONFIRMAT IONS FROM THE ABOVE TWO PARTIES VIZ. M/S M D TRANSPORT AND M/S S R ROADWAYS CONFIRM ING THE FACT THAT THEY WERE PAID INTEREST OF RS.6,500/- AND RS.7,500/- RESPECTI VELY. THEY HAVE ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE OUTSTANDING AMOUNT AS ON 31-3-2004 WAS RS. 3,25,169/- AND RS.2,71,224/-. BOTH THE ABOVE PARTIES ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX WITH THE SAME AO. CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS, I HOLD THAT THE OU TSTANDING AMOUNT OF RS.3,25,169/- IN THE NAME OF M/S M D TRANSPORT AND RS.2,71,224/- IN THE NAME OF M/S S R ROADWAYS ARE PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND THEREFO RE NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED. HENCE, ADDITION OF RS.5,96,393/- IS DELETED. 5. THE REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST T HE AFORESAID FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ISSUE S RAISED IN VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US AND AS DISCUSSED IN PAR A 2 TO 4 .1 ABOVE. THE LD. DR WHILE CARRYING US THROUGH THE IMP UGNED ORDERS CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT BEFORE T HE AO ANY VOUCHERS FOR TRUCK HIRE CHARGES, DETAILS/EVIDENCE I N SUPPORT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND SOURCES OF MEETING HOUSEHOL D EXPENSES OR EVEN CONFIRMATIONS OF M/S M D TRANSPORT AND M/S S R ROADWAYS . WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE INFORMATION/DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) , HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DE LETING THE ADDITIONS, ESPECIALLY WHEN IN THIS CASE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN FR AMED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AR ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A).TO A QUERY BY THE BENCH, THE LD. AR RAISED NO OBJECTION IF THE ISSUES RAISED IN VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL WERE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A ). ITA NO.2973/AHD/2007 FOR AY 2004-05 DHARMENDRA SHANKERLAL PATEL 6 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF TRUCK HIRE CHARGES AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF HOU SEHOLD EXPENSES AND UNEXPLAINED CREDITS ,WITHOUT HAVING ANY REMAND REPO RT FROM THE AO IN RESPECT OF VOUCHERS FOR TRUCK HIRE CHARGES, DETAILS/EVIDENCE O F AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR MEETING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN THE LIGHT OF TOTAL ME MBERS OF THE FAMILY AND CONFIRMATIONS OF THE AFORESAID TWO CREDITORS, EVEN WHEN HE WAS FULLY AWARE THAT ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMPLETED U/S 144 OF THE ACT AN D THE ASSESSEE DID NOT SUBMIT THE NECESSARY DETAILS/VOUCHERS OR CONFIRMAT IONS BEFORE THE AO. IN NUTSHELL, THE LD. CIT(A) REDUCED/DELETED THE ADDITI ONS ON THE BASIS OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM, WITHOUT FOLLOWING T HE PROCEDURE LAID DOWN UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES,1962 AND WITHOUT EVEN GRAN TING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. AS IS APPARENT FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSIONS WITHOUT ASCERTAINING AS TO WHETHER OR N OT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM SUBMITTING THE A FORESAID ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS/INFORMATION BEFORE THE AO AS PER PROVIS IONS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 NOR THE LD. CIT(A) SEEMS TO HAVE RECORD ED ANY REASONS BEFORE ADMITTING THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS IN EVIDENCE. HERE WE MAY HAVE A LOOK AT THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES 19 62, WHICH READS AS UNDER: (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER TH AN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER, EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY:-- (A) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO ADMI T EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED;OR (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER; OR (C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVAN T TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR ITA NO.2973/AHD/2007 FOR AY 2004-05 DHARMENDRA SHANKERLAL PATEL 7 (D) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO A DDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. (2) NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB-RULE (1 ) UNLESS THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS) RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. (3)THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER(APPEALS) OR, AS THE CA SE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-RULE (1) UNLESS THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER HA S BEEN ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY (A) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR (B) TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITN ESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT (4) NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT, OR THE EXAMI NATION OF ANY WITNESS, TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL, OR FOR ANY OTH ER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY (WHETH ER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER) UNDER CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 251 OR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECT ION 271..' 6.1 IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE AFORESAID PROVISIONS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) CAN TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB-R. (1)(B) & (C) OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 IF THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFF ICIENT CAUSE .IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE AFORESAID VOUCHERS FOR TRUCK HIRE EXPENSES, DETAILS/EVIDENCE FOR MEETING HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND CONFIRMATIONS OF TWO CREDITORS AND THE RE IS NO EVIDENCE ON RECORD THAT THE SAID DETAILS/DOCUMENTS WERE EVER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. RATHER, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT CONFIRMATIONS OF M/S M D TRA NSPORT AND M/S S R ROADWAYS AND OTHER RELEVANT DOCUMENTS MENTIONED IN SL. NO. 4 & 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK AS ALSO VOUCHERS FOR TRUCK HIRE EXPENSES WERE SUBMITTED ONLY BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE NEVER SUBMITTED EITHER DETAILS OF HIS FAMILY MEMBERS OR THE DETAILS AND EXTENT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY HIS BROTHER, BEFORE THE AO, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE DID NOT OWN ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND NOR HAD ANY INDEPENDENT AGRICULTURAL INCOME. MOREOV ER, THERE IS NOTHING TO SUGGEST AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE LD. CIT(A) RECORD ED ANY REASONS BEFORE ITA NO.2973/AHD/2007 FOR AY 2004-05 DHARMENDRA SHANKERLAL PATEL 8 ADMITTING THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTS BY WAY OF ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE. SINCE IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE/D OCUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAVE BEEN ADMITTED WITHOUT RECORD ING ANY FINDINGS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFIC IENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE SAID EVIDENCE/DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO AND WITHO UT RECORDING ANY REASONS IN TERMS OF RULE 46A(2) OF THE IT RULES,1962, WE FIND MERIT IN THE UNDISPUTED CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED DR AND THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, VACATE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RES TORE THE ISSUES RAISED IN VARIOUS GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE US TO HIS FILE, WITH THE D IRECTIONS TO FOLLOW THE MANDATE IN TERMS OF RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 AS ALSO PRI NCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THEREAFTER, DISPOSE OF THE MATTER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER ALLOWING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BOTH THE PARTIES. WITH THESE DIRECT IONS, GROUND NOS. 1 ,1.1,2 TO 2.5 & 3 TO 3.1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE DISPOSED OF, A S INDICATED HEREINBEFORE. 7 . GROUND NOS. 4 & 5 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE, DO NO T REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUDICATION AND ARE, THEREFORE, DISMISSED . 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT TODAY ON 2-7 -2010 SD/- SD/- (T K SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A N PAHUJA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE : 2-7 -2010 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI DHARMENDRA SHANKERLAL PATEL, PROP. OF SHRI SIDDHI VINAYAK ROADWAYS, 16, KRISHNANAGAR SOCIETY, KUKARWA DA 2. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, PATAN WARD-3, 2 ND FLOOR, APOLLO ENCLAVE, HIGHWAY, MEHSANA 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT(A)-XXI, AHMEDABAD 5. DR, BENCH-C, ITAT, AHMEDABAD ITA NO.2973/AHD/2007 FOR AY 2004-05 DHARMENDRA SHANKERLAL PATEL 9 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD