NEERAJ NATH, MUMBAI V. ITO 22(3)(3), NAVI MUMBAI

ITA 299/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2107 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-01-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK BATRA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B , BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.C.SHARMA , A M & SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN , J M ./ ITA NO . 299 / MUM/20 1 3 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 9 - 20 10 ) NEER AJ NATH, PLOT NO. 153, SECTOR - 21, NERUL (EAST), NAVI MUMBAI - 400705 VS. ITO 22(3)(3), VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI. ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A ABPN 6775 A ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJ ESH S. SHAH /REVENUE BY : SHRI VIVEK BATRA / DATE OF HEARING : 15 / 09 / 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30/11 /2015 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : TH IS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A), DATED 16 - 11 - 2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9 - 10 , IN THE MATTER OF ORDER P ASSED U/S.143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT . 2. THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED DURING THE COURS E OF HEARING BEFORE HIM. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT IN THIS CASE, ASSESS MENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE AO ON 9 - 12 - 2011. THE CONTENTION OF ASSESSEE EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THE INFORMATION CALLED BY THE AO WAS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 18 - 11 - 2011, WHICH WAS FILED ON 23 - 11 - 2011, HOWEVER, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SAME THE AO ITA NO. 299 /M/1 3 2 PASSED ORDER ON 9 - 12 - 2011, MUCH PRIOR TO THE EXPIRY DATE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 2010 WHICH IS 31 - 3 - 2012. 4. LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO T HE FACT THAT THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION FOR THE INTEREST PAID TO ICICI BANK . IN SUPPORT OF IT THE BANK STATEMENT INDICATED CHARGING OF INTEREST WAS FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. OUR ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE DETAILS FILED IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF SHOP IN GURGAON, HOWEVER, THE AO HAS WRONGLY CONSIDERED THE TRANSACTION AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S.69 OF THE ACT. 5. WE FOUND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED ALL THE EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM, HOWEVER, HE DECLINED THE SAME ONLY ON THE PLEA THAT ASSE SSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A. AS PER OUR CONSIDERED VIEW BEFORE REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SO FILED, THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A, WHEN THE CIT(A) HIMSELF WAS SATISFIED THAT THESE EVID ENCES WERE CRUCIAL FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE UNDER APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE RESTORE THE ENTIRE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIDING AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SO FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN PART FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . O RDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30/11 / 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) ( R.C.SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 30/11 201 5 . . /PKM , . / PS ITA NO. 299 /M/1 3 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//