The ACIT, Circle-2(1), Vijayawada V. Sri Harish Kumar Bodani, Vijayawada

ITA 3/VIZ/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 136 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6972 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: G S S GOPINATH
• Assessee Lawyers: N O N E
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 40(a)(ia)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM BEFORE: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3/VIZAG/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1) VIJAYAWADA SRI HARISH KUMAR BODANI VIJAYAWADA (APPELLANT) VS. (RESPONDENT) PAN NO.ABVPB 5305J APPELLANT BY: SHRI G.S.S. GOPINATH, DR RESPONDENT BY: N O N E ORDER PER SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON A SOLITARY GROUND THAT CIT(A) OUGHT NOT H AVE ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEES IN T HE FORM OF CONFIRMATION LETTERS, BILLS OF M/S. AMIT PLASTIC INDUSTRIES WHIC H WERE NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE CO URSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS AGAINST RULE 46A OF THE I.T. R ULES. THIS APPEAL WAS TAKEN UP FOR HEARING ON 15 TH MARCH, 2010 BUT NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THA T NOTICE OF HEARING WAS DULY SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEES AS A.D. CARD IS PLACED ON RECORD. SINCE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES DESPITE VALID S ERVICE OF NOTICE WE HAD NO OTHER OPTION BUT TO HEAR THE APPEAL EX-PARTE. ACCO RDINGLY, THE REVENUE WAS HEARD. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, THE LD. D.R. HAS INVITED OUR ATTENTION THAT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASS ESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE PURCHASE INVOICES FROM M/S. AMIT PLASTICS. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) AFTER HAVING OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID LABOUR CHARGES TO M /S. AMIT PLASTIC INDUSTRIES AMOUNTING TO RS.9,05,504/- FOR MAKING ST RAPS ON WHICH NO TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY DISALLOWE D THE PAYMENT AGAINST 2 WHICH THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE C IT(A) AND PLACED COPIES OF PURCHASE INVOICES FOR HAWAI STRAPS FROM OTHER SU PPLIERS ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM AMIT PLASTICS. THESE EVID ENCES WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BY THE CIT(A) AND HE DELETED THE ADDITION. THE LD. D.R. FURTHER CONTENDED SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED THIS ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT CONFRONTING IT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE HAS ACT ED IN GROSS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. AS SUCH HIS ORDERS DESERVE TO BE SET ASIDE. 3. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF REVENUES CONTENTIONS, WE FIND FORCE IN TH E CONTENTIONS OF THE REVENUE THAT THE CIT (A) HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE WITHOUT CONFRONTING IT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE HE HAS ACTED IN VI OLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, WE SET ASIDE HIS ORDER AND RESTORE THE MATTE R TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND ALSO AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPOR TUNITY OF HAVING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.3.2010 SD/- SD/- (BR BASKARAN) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VG/SPS VISAKHAPATNAM, DATED 23 RD MARCH, 2010 COPY TO 1 THE ACIT, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA 2 SRI HARISH KUMAR BODANI, PROP: AMIT RUBBER INDUST RY, PLOT NO.2, NEAR S.R.M.T., PHASE-III, AUTONAGAR, VIJAYAWADA-520 007. 3 THE CIT, VIJAYAWADA 4 THE CIT(A), VIJAYAWADA 5 THE DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM. 6 GUARD FILE. BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM