AJAY KRISHNA MODI, Jaipur V. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 339/JPR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 33923114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D K MEENA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 6; 68

Judgement Text

1 ITA 339(2)-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH B JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI R.K. GUPTA AND SHRI N.L. KALRA ITA NO. 339 & 340/JP/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2000-01 & 2001-02. SHRI AJAY KRISHNA MODI, VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIR CLE-1, B-49, KESHAV PATH, SURAJ NAGAR (W), JAIPUR. JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MANISH AGARWAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI D.K. MEENA DATE OF HEARING : 16.08.2011. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19.8.2011. ORDER DATE OF ORDER : 19/08/2011. PER R.K. GUPTA, J.M. THESE ARE TWO APPEALS BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDE RS OF LD. CIT (A) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02. 2. IN APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 THE ASSESS EE IS OBJECTING IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25,000/- MADE BY AO UNDER SECTION 6 8. 3. THE ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. AN ADDITION OF RS. 2,20,000/ - WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 68. CERTAIN EVIDENCES COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE AO. THEY W ERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES, THE LD. CIT (A) FOUND TH AT EXCEPT AN ADDITION OF RS. 25,000/- 2 WHICH IS IN RESPECT TO LOAN TAKEN FROM VISHWANATH A GARWAL HUF, ENTIRE OTHER ADDITIONS WERE DELETED. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, TH E LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SHRI VISHWANATH AGARWAL WHO WAS THE KARTA OF T HE HUF WAS DIED AND FOR THIS REASON CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF LOAN COULD NOT BE FILED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LOAN WAS TAKEN THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE AND RET URNED ALSO THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. INTEREST PAID ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS NOT DISA LLOWED EITHER BY AO OR BY LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT (A) SHOULD BE DELETED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R PLACED RELIANCE O N THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSING T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE DESERVES TO SUCCEED ON THIS ISSUE. IT IS SEEN THAT INTEREST PAID ON THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 25,000/- WAS NOT DISALLOWED EITHER BY THE AO OR BY LD. CIT (A). INTEREST WAS PAID IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR ALSO AND THEY HAVE ALLOWED INTER EST PAID TO THIS PARTY. THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN REPAID THROUGH PROPER BANKING CHANNEL. THE AM OUNT OF LOAN WAS TAKEN THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE. SINCE THE KARTA OF HUF DIED, THEREFORE, CONFIRMATION COULD NOT BE OBTAINED. DEATH CERTIFICATE IS PLACED ON RECORD. KEEPING IN MIND ALL THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ESPECIALLY AS THE KARTA OF HUF DI ED AND IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE TASK FOR ASSESSEE TO OBTAIN CONFIRMATION, WE HOLD THAT ADDIT ION MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF RS. 25,000/- WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. THERE IS NOTHING ON RE CORD AGAINST ASSESSEE THAT AMOUNT OF LOAN WAS NOT TAKEN OR NOT PAID ALONG WITH INTEREST. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DELETE THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION OF RS. 25,000/-. 6. FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE IS OBJ ECTING IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH CREDIT UN DER SECTION 68. 3 7. THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,51,000/- WAS MADE BY THE A O UNDER SECTION 68 AS ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE REQUISITE DETAILS. ALL THE DETA ILS WERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN PART DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,10,000/-. HOWEVER, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT TO REMA INING ADDITION OF RS. 3,50,000/- WAS NOT ACCEPTED AND, THEREFORE, HE SUSTAINED THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 3,50,000/-. 8. NOW THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING STATED THAT TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED IN R ESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,50,000/- WERE ALSO LIABLE TO BE ACCEPTED WHICH WAS NOT ACCEPTED B Y LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER SHOULD BE SENT BACK TO TH E FILE OF AO TO CONSIDER THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SO THAT INJUSTICE SHOULD NOT B E DONE TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R PLACED RELIANCE O N THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A). 10. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND LD. CIT (A) WE FIND WEIGHT IN THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE FILED IN RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS. 3,50,000/- SHOULD ALSO HAVE BEEN AC CEPTED AND THEREAFTER THE MATTER SHOULD BE DISPOSED OFF ON MERIT. COPIES OF CONFIRM ATION OF ACCOUNT ARE PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT ALL THE PERSONS WHO ADVANCED THE LO AN OF RS. 3,50,000/- ARE ASSESSED TO TAX, THEREFORE, TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE SET ASID E THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) IN THIS RESPECT AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF AO TO CONSIDE R THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESS EE WANTED TO FILE BEFORE HIM AND THEN PASS A FRESH ORDER IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 3, 50,000/- SUSTAINED BY LD. CIT (A). WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000- 01 IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4 12. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19 .8.2011. SD/- SD/- ( N.L. KALRA ) ( R.K. GUPTA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR, D/- COPY FORWARDED TO :- SHRI AJAY KRISHNA MODI, JAIPUR. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 339(2)/JP/2011) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR.