Shri Chirag H. Shah, HUF, Ahmedabad V. The Income Tax Officer, (OSD), Range-9, Ahmedabad

ITA 3066/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1519 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Assessment record
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , ! BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP NO.96/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2009-10 (BY ASSESSEE) AND ./ I.T.A. NO.3066/AHD/2014 (BY ASSESSEE) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 ) CHIRAG H. SHAH HUF 3, SUKRUT FLAT OPP. ANANDJI KALYANJI PEDHI NR.PNB VASANTKUNJ AHMEDABAD / VS. THE ITO (OSD) RANGE-9 AHMEDABAD-380 015 & ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ( &) / APPELLANT ) .. ( *+&) / RESPONDENT ) &), / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RUPESH MEHTA, AR *+&) -, / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK SUTARIA, SR.DR . - / DATE OF HEARING 27/05/2016 /012 - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 27/05/2016 / O R D E R PER SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-XX, AHMEDABAD DATED 22/09/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO FILED SP NO.96/AHD/2015 AND ITA NO.3066/ AHD/2014 CHIRAG H. SHAH HUF VS. ITO (OSD) ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 2 - STAY PETITION PRAYING FOR STAY OF OUTSTANDING DISPU TED TAX DEMAND OF RS.13,92,050/-. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN I TA NO.3066/AHD2014 FOR AY 2009-10. 2.1. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE, AS CULLED OUT FRO M THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS ARE AS UNDER:- 2.2. ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 200 9-10 ON 29/12/2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,34,290/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 30/10/2011 AND THE TOTAL I NCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.11,40,456/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A O, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 2 2/09/2014 IN APPEAL NO.CIT(A)-XV/ITO(OSD)-R.9/278/11-12 DISMISSED THE A PPEAL OF ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE GROUNDS WHIC H HAVE BEEN AMENDED ON 26/04/2016 AND THE AMENDED/ADDITIONAL GROUNDS R EAD AS UNDER:- (1) THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM UNDER RULE 46 A AND THEREBY FAI LED TO GIVE NATURAL JUSTICE TO YOUR APPELLANT. YOUR APPELLANT T HEREFORE REQUEST THE HON'BLE COURT TO ACCEPT THE SAME AND DE LETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO U/S - 68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 AND CONFIRMED BY THE HON'BLE CIT(A). (2) THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES (CONFIRMATIONS WITH OTHER RELEVANT DOCUME NTS) IN RESPECT UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 26,25,200/- AND THER EBY ERRED IN SP NO.96/AHD/2015 AND ITA NO.3066/ AHD/2014 CHIRAG H. SHAH HUF VS. ITO (OSD) ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 3 - CONFIRMING THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT, 1961. SINCE YOUR APPELLANT HAD CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THE IDENTITY OF T HE PERSON, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS AN D THE SAME WAS ALSO VERIFIED BY THE LD. AO, YOUR APPELLANT HER EBY REQUEST THE HON'BLE COURT TO DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION ON THIS GROUND. (3) THE HON'BLE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E ADDITION IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 7,44,000/- THOUGH THE SAME WAS MADE OUT OF THE CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS. 7,42,000/- MADE PRIO R TO THE DATE OF DEPOSITS WHICH CAN BE SEEN FROM THE BANK STATEME NT AVAILABLE ON RECORD ITSELF. AND THEREFORE YOUR APPELLANT REQU EST THE HON'BLE COURT TO GIVE THE CREDIT OF THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE AMOUNT FROM BANK AND DELETE THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE ON TH IS GROUND. 3. THE LD.AR, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT ASSES SEE HAD FURNISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES LIKE CONFIRMATION OF PARTIES, THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS, ETC. BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AS THESE EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WERE COMPLETELY IGNORED BY HIM WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL. HE POINTED TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PLACED IN PA PER-BOOK. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMANDED BACK TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR CONSIDERATION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES. 3.1. LD.SR.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, OPPOSED THE REQUE ST OF LD.AR FOR GRANTING 2 ND INNING TO ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT DESPITE VARI OUS OPPORTUNITIES, ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE REQUIRE D DETAILS AND, THEREFORE, AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. HE THUS S UPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. SP NO.96/AHD/2015 AND ITA NO.3066/ AHD/2014 CHIRAG H. SHAH HUF VS. ITO (OSD) ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 4 - 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HAD FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY ASSESSEE AND, THEREAF TER UPHELD THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING ANY FINDING ON MERITS. BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THESE EVIDENCES WOULD BE MATERIAL AN D WOULD HELP IN DECIDING THE ISSUE, BUT SINCE THESE EVIDENCES WERE NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL NEEDS TO BE CONSIDERED AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE A ND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND BY A SPEAKING ORDER. NEEDLESS TO STATE THA T CIT(A) SHALL GRANT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES . WE FURTHER DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO CO-OPERATE BY FURNISHING PROMPTLY ALL T HE DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AUTHORITIES. SINCE WE HAVE REMITTED THE MATTE R BACK TO THE FILE OF LD.CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH, WE ARE NOT ADJUDICAT ING THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON MERITS. 5. AS A RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. SINCE WE HAVE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE STAY PETITION NO.96/AHD/2015 FOR AY 2 009-10 FILED BY THE SP NO.96/AHD/2015 AND ITA NO.3066/ AHD/2014 CHIRAG H. SHAH HUF VS. ITO (OSD) ASST.YEAR 2009-10 - 5 - ASSESSEE HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND, THEREFORE, ASS ESSEES STAY PETITION IS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, WHEREAS STAY PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 27 /05/2016 SD/- SD/- ( ) () (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ( ANIL CHATUR VEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 27/ 05 /2016 5..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS !'#$#! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. &) / THE APPELLANT 2. *+&) / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 678 9 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 9 ( ) / THE CIT(A)-XX, AHMEDABAD 5. :;< *78 , 78 2 , 6 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. <>?. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, +:* //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 27.5.16 (VERBATIM DICTATION COVERED MATTER) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 27.5.16 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.30.5.16 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 30.5.16 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER