Shri Jimit C. Shah, Surat V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(2), Surat

ITA 3191/AHD/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0644 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 26-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-11-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATISH SOLANKI HEARING CONCLUD
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO. 3191 /AHD/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012 - 13 PAGE 1 OF 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM : PRAMOD KUMAR AM ] I.T.A. NO . 3191 /AHD/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 JIMIT C. SHAH, . ..... ...........APPELLANT 810, RAJESHWAR APT., TIMALIYAWAD, NANPURA, SURAT 395 001. [ PAN: ACOPS 2742 M ] VS INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 2(3)(2), SURAT. .. ...........RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY MEHUL SHAH FOR THE APPELLANT SATISH SOLANKI FOR THE RESPONDENT HEARING CONCLUDED ON: 26 /0 7 / 20 16 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : 3 1 /08/ 20 16 O R D E R 1. THIS APPEAL, FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 18 TH SEPTEMBER 2015 PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13. 2. GRIEVA NCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN DISALLOWING INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.5,87,443/ - . 2. IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY CIT ( A ) MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. I.T.A. NO. 3191 /AHD/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012 - 13 PAGE 2 OF 3 3. WHEN THIS APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS CASE THE CIT(A) HAS DECLINED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO GOOD REASON FOR NOT FURNISHING THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. HE SUBMITS THAT HE WILL BE CONTENT BY THE MATTER BEING REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A ) WITH A DIRECTION TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND THUS ASSESSEE GIVE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING ON MERITS IN THE LIGHT OF FACTS NOW BROUGHT ON RECORD. HE SUBMITS THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ADOPTED A VERY PEDANTIC APPROACH WHICH DOES NOT, WITH RES PECT, SERVE THE CAUSE OF FAIRNESS AND JUSTICE. LEARNED DR RELIED UPON THE STAND OF THE CIT(A) BUT, IN ALL FAIRNESS, SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE MATTER BEING REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION DE NOVO, ON MERITS, WITHOUT ANY F ETTERS OF DIRECTIONS. 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVING PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, I AM INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION DE NOVO AFTER ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. AS I DIRECT SO, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE IN SUBMITTING THESE EVIDENCES AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE AND THAT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIRNESS, THESE EVIDENC ES ARE INDEED REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT AND CONSIDERED ON MERITS, AND, IN COMING TO THIS CONCLUSION, I AM GUIDED BY A DIVISION BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ELECTRA (JAIPUR) (P) LTD. VS. IAC (1988) 26 ITD 236 (DEL), WHICH ARE REPRO DUCED BELOW : 'AFTER GOING THROUGH THE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE US, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THIS AND GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DISQUALIFIED FROM PRODUCING THIS EVIDENCE MERELY ON TH E GROUND THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT PLACED BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF JUDICIARY AS OF THE REVENUE IS TO GET AT THE TRUTH. IF THE TRUTH IS THAT PAYMENT OF COMMISSION WAS GENUINE AND WAS DICTATED BY THE BUSINESS NEEDS, SUCH A PAYMENT SHOULD NOT BE DISALLOWED MERELY ON THE I.T.A. NO. 3191 /AHD/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2012 - 13 PAGE 3 OF 3 GROUND THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO LEAD PROPER EVIDENCE OR ON THE GROUND THAT EVIDENCE LEAD WAS OF SUCH A NATURE AS TO CREATE A VERY HIGH DEGREE OF SUSPICION. THERE SHOULD BE NO OBJECTION TO CONSIDER ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED, TO TEST ITS AUTHENTICITY AND RELEVANCE AND THEN ACT ON IT. IF THE EVIDENCE IS GENUINE, RELIABLE, PROVES ASSESSEE S CASE, THEN ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE DENIED THE OPPORTUNITY. BUT ON THE OTHER HAND, IF THE EVIDENCE LED TURNS OUT TO BE SPURIOUS, FABRICATED OR OF IRRELEVANT NATURE, SUCH CONSEQUENCES, AS PROVIDED UNDER THE LAW, WILL ENSURE. IT IS, THEREFORE, INCORRECT TO SHUT OUT THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROCESS OF ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE FROM LEADING EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS CASE. THE EARLIER INABILITY TO LEAD THE EVI DENCE SHOULD NOT BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNLESS IT IS KNOWN TO THE COURT OR SUGGESTED TO THE COURT OR THERE WAS EVIDENCE TO THE SUSPECT THAT EVIDENCE WAS FABRICATED. THERE IS NO SUCH SUGGESTION IN THIS CASE. WE ARE THEREFORE, OF THE OPINION THAT REQUE ST OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL IS REASONABLE AND REQUEST MADE BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR THE REFUSAL OF ITS ADMISSION IS NOT PROPER......' 5. THE MATTER STANDS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) AS SUCH. 6 . THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES IN THE TER MS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/ - PRAMOD KUMAR (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED: 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST , 2016 . COPIES TO : (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) C IT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD