Prashant Singhal, Gwalior V. A.C.I.T., Range-II, Gwalior

ITA 335/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 33520314 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 27-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: B D GIRI
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Competent authority

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 335/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2002-03 SHRI PRASHANT SINGHAL, VS. A.C.I.T., RANGE-II, SINGHAL BHAWAN, JAYENDRA GANJ, GWALIOR LASHKAR, GWALIOR. (PAN : AXKPS 5560 M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI B.D. GIRI, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 27.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.12.2011 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 22.06.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GWALIOR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN S USTAINING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 153 A WHILE THERE WERE NO REASONS FOR FORMING SATIS FACTION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AS CONTEMPLATED U/S. 132(1) FOR ISSUING W ARRANT OF SEARCH AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO BE ANNULLE D. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO. 1 ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE ASE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER O F INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN LAW AND FACTS AND WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ACCEP TING THE OPENING CAPITAL AND IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS.2,13,615/- OUT OF THE OPENING CAPITAL THE ADDITION SO SUSTAINED MAY BE DELETED OR SUITABLY REDUCED. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) WHILE PASSING THE ORDER WAS INFLUENCED BY AN EXTERIOR MATERIAL I.E., APPRAISAL REPORT SAID TO BE IN 6 VOLUMES WHEREAS THE SAID APPRAISAL REPORT WAS NEVER BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BY THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME-TAX 2 (APPEALS) AND THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WAS VIOLATED AND ADDITIONS OF RS.2,13,615/- WAS UNJUSTIFIABLY SUSTAINED ON THAT B ASIS. THE ADDITION AS UPHELD MAY BE DELETED OR SUITABLY REDUCED. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE ON THE BASIS OF APPRAISAL REPORT WHICH IS IN SIX VOLUMES, AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT TO THE N OTICE OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BY THE CIT(A). HE REQUESTED THAT ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DOCUMENT, THE ADDITION IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. HE FURTH ER STATED THAT THERE WAS NO REASON FOR FORMING THE SATISFACTION OF THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY AS CONTEMPL ATED U/S. 132(1) FOR ISSUING SEARCH WARRANT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO BE ANNULL ED. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE MAY BE DELETED. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, I FIND THAT IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORIT Y HAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ASSESSEE ABOUT THE APPRAISAL REPORT WHICH IS IN SIX VOLUMES AND THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF ONLY APP RAISAL REPORT. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS THE GR OUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AS WELL AS IN THE PRESENT APPEA L, I AM NOT COMMENTING UPON THE MERITS OF THE PRESENT CASE BECAUSE IT MAY PREJUDICE TO THE MIND O F LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BUT I AM OF THE 3 CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE REQUIRES RE-CONSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY BECA USE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS MENTIONED ABOUT THE APPRAISAL REPORT AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITI ON IN DISPUTE. I, THEREFORE, RESTORE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION T HAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SHALL ALLOW THE ASSESSEE TO INSPECT THE APPRAISAL REPORT AND IF THE ASSESSEE DESIRES FOR ITS COPY, THE SAME MAY SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER RULES AND DECIDE TH E ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH UNDER LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE APPRAISAL REPORT. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.12.2011. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH DECEMBER, 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY