DDIT, New Delhi V. Sh. Pradeep Mathur, New Delhi

ITA 3076/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 52584 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K CHAND
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.L. SETHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3076/DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DDIT, VS. PRADEEP MATHUR, CIRCLE 3(1), C/O DEEP GARG & CO., INTERNATIONAL TAXATION, CHHABRA COMPLEX, NEW DELHI. 8, VEER SAVARKAR BLOCK, MADHUBAN ROAD, SHAKARPUR, NEW DELHI. AAHPM5025A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. M.K. CHAND, SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : RAKESH GARG, CA ORDER PER C.L. SETHI, J.M. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.4.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), FOR THE A.Y. 20 07-08. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE REVO LVE AROUND THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 26,95,839/- BY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES AND WITHOUT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO T HE ITA NO. 3076/D/2011 2 ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE HEARD UNDER RULE 46A(3) OF THE I.T. RULES. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4. IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS . 26,95,839/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE MUTUAL FUNDS AND FOR WANT OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY ADMITTING AD DITIONAL EVIDENCES. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, OF THIS APPEA L, IT WAS ADMITTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD CO NSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO HAVE HIS SAY ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. IT IS, TH US, CLEAR THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE RULE 46A(3) OF THE I.T. RULES. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR HIS FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER ALLOWING AN OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AO OR TO CALL A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE VERACITY OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE A SSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL CONSIDERED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S ONLY AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE EVID ENCES AND TO GIVE HIS COMMENT ON MERIT. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY . ITA NO. 3076/D/2011 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE I S TREATED TO BE ALLOWED FOR A STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON 17.08.2011 IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE HEARING WAS OVER. SD/- SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (C.L. SETH I) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17.8.11 *KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR