Switto Mahendrabhai Shah, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-3(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 3114/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 311420514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2013
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P BATHEJA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVATIA
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD A BENCH BEFORE: SRI D.K TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEM BER SWITTO MAHENDRABHAI SHAH PROP. M/S. SHITAL PRINTERS & STATIONERS, SHREEJI ESTATE, GIDC NARODA, AHMEDABAD PAN: AEAPS 1485 H (APPELLANT) VS INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 3(4), AHMEDABAD (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY: SRI S.N. DIVATIA, A.R. REVENUE BY: SRI OP BATHEJA, SR.D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 08-10-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11-10-20 13 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER:- THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), GANDHINAGAR, AHMEDABAD DATED 13-08-2010. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING AT THE OUTSET LEARNED COU NSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 14 LACS BY THE ASSESSEE IN HDFC BANK ACCOUNT, ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SHO W CAUSE TO THE ITA NO.3114/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 I.T.A NO.3114/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO SWITTO MAHENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ITO 2 ASSESSEE ON 18-12-2008 AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 29-12-2008 IGNORING THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT IN THE FORM OF DETAILS OF LOANS TAKEN FOR THIS PURPOSE THOUGH THE SAME WAS MADE PART OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. LD. CIT(A) ALSO DID NOT ADMIT TH IS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. HE THER EFORE PRAYED THAT THE MATTER MAY KINDLY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF A O FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THIS ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF LO WER AUTHORITIES. 3. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD, WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSE E. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT WHEN ASSESSEE FILED SOME EV IDENCE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS HDFC BANK ACCOUNT, AO INSTEAD OF MAKING IT PART OF ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD HAVE ENQUIRED INTO IT AND THEN SHOULD HAVE EITHER ACCEPTED IT OR REJECTED IT. LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ADMITTING THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FI LE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER OBTAINING REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD ACCORD INGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE AT CAPTION PAGE SD/- SD/- (T.R.MEENA) ( D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD : DATED 11/10/2013 AK I.T.A NO.3114/AHD/2010 A.Y. 2006-07 PAGE NO SWITTO MAHENDRABHAI SHAH VS. ITO 3 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. ASSESSEE 2. REVENUE 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , / ,