Ashok Kumar, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3167/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 135 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0416 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-02-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-02-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MRS ANUSHA KHURANA
• Assessee Lawyers: V MOHAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : A : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3167/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ASHOK KUMAR, D-115, MAIN GOPAL NAGAR, NAJAFGARH, NEW DELHI 110 043. PAN : AICPK4336K VS. ITO, WARD 59(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. MOHAN, CA REVENUE BY : MRS. ANUSHA KHURANA, SR. DR ORDER PER I.P. BANSAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) DATED 31 ST MARCH, 2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006- 07. GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [CIT (A)] IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE ACT. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN MAKING ADDITIO N TO THE EXTENT OF RS.11,50,800/- ON ACCOUNT DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. ITA NO.3167/DEL/2010 2 THE BANK ACCOUNT. 4 (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT RS.2,00,000/- HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN CASH BY HIM FROM SHRI DHARAM PAL MALHAN, HUF. (II) THAT THE ABOVE SAID HAS BEEN CONFIRMED REJECTIN G ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE SAME. 5 (I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE REMAINING AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT WAS OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ITSELF. (II) THAT THE ABOVE SAID HAS BEEN CONFIRMED REJECTIN G ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THE SAME. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS PLEADED BY LEARNED AR THAT T HE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHILE CONSIDERING THE IMPUGNED ADDIT ION, LEARNED CIT (A) HAS REFUSED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. IT WA S PLEADED BY LEARNED AR THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE-ADJUDICATI ON OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUN ITY OF HEARING. HOWEVER, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) AND PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITY BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HENCE, LEARNED CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY RE JECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE US. INITIALLY LEARNED CI T (A) HAS ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SUBMISSION OF ADDI TIONAL ITA NO.3167/DEL/2010 3 EVIDENCES AND HE ALSO HAD FORWARDED THE RELEVANT DOCU MENTS TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO FILED HIS REMAND REPORT AND IN THE REMAND REPORT AS REPRODUCED IN PAR A 5 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL THE OPPORTUNITI ES PROVIDED TO HIM BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN A REJOINDER IT HAS BEE N MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE, AS QUOTED IN PARA 7 OF THE ORDER OF THE CI T (A), THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN ADDITION TO THOSE DOCUMENTS THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED TO FILE JAMA BANDI, ETC. WHICH WERE ALSO GOT OBTAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE. BUT, ULTIMATELY, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS REJECTED TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE FACTS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IT WILL BE IN THE F ITNESS OF THINGS IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS WITH A DIRECT ION THAT HE WILL PROVIDE THE ASSESSEE WITH A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO PL ACE ALL THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD TO SUPPORT HIS CASE IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT THAT WHETHER THOSE EVIDENCES WERE EARLIER FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR CIT (A) OR NOT AND AFTER PROVIDING SUCH OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL RE-ADJUDICATE ON THE ADDITIO NS WHICH HAVE BEEN AGITATED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. WE DIRECT ACCO RDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APPEAL F LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED IN THE MANNER AFORESAID. 5. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18.02. 2011. SD/- SD/- [A.K. GARODIA] [I.P. BANSAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 18.02.2011. DK ITA NO.3167/DEL/2010 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES