Shri Rajendra Damodardas Thakkar, Ahmedabad V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-11(2), Ahmedabad

ITA 3408/AHD/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 340820514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-11-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 21-11-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y P VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD B BENCH BEFORE: SHRI D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER I.T.A. NO.3408/AHD/2009 A.Y.2006-07 RAJENDRA DAMODARDAS THAKKAR C/O. GOPI RESTAURANT & LODGE, B/H V.S. HOSPITAL, ELLISBRIDGE, AHMEDABAD PAN-AARPT3407D APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-11(2), AHMEDABAD RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI Y.P. VERMA, SR. D.R. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DIVETIA, A.R. DATE OF HEARING : 21.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.11.2012 / ORDER PER : D.K. TYAGI, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 16.10.2009. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL CARRYING ON A PARTNERSHIP BUSINESS OF RUNNING AN EATING HOUSE NAM ELY JALARAM PARATHA HOUSE. HE IS ALSO A PARTNER IN M/S GOPI RESTAURANT AND LODGE. RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.84,336/- WAS FI LED. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT ASSESS EE HAS DEPOSITED CASH IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH KOTAK MAHINDRA BANK AND BANK OF INDIA OF I.T.A. NO.3408/AHD/2009 A.Y.2006-07 2 RS.11,42,030/- AND RS.18,24,000/- RESPECTIVELY. AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS. ASSESSEE REP LIED THAT HE HAD RE- DEPOSITED THE CASH OUT OF WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM BANK . THIS EXPLANATION WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THE A.O. AS THE SAME WAS NOT SUPP ORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE, AN ADDITION OF RS.28,66,030/- WAS MA DE BY THE A.O. U/S 68 OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE WANT ED TO RELY ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BUT THE SAME WAS NOT ADMITTED BY LD. CIT(A ) AND WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT T O BE FILED, LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.28,66,030/-. 3. BEFORE US ASSESSEE, BESIDES CHALLENGING THE ACTI ON OF LD. CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.28,66,030/- MADE BY T HE A.O. U/S 68 OF THE ACT, HAS ALSO TAKEN ADDITIONAL GROUND IN RESPECT OF NON-ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY LD. CIT(A). 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RECORD WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY THE ISSUE IN HAND SHOULD BE DECIDED AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERAT ION THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) A ND THE SAME HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US AT PAGE 7 TO 26 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HOWEVER, WE FEEL THAT SINCE THE NATURE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS SUCH THA T IT REQUIRES VERIFICATION AT THE END OF THE A.O., THEREFORE, IT WILL BE IN THE F ITNESS OF THINGS IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER TAKING INTO I.T.A. NO.3408/AHD/2009 A.Y.2006-07 3 CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NOW RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 21.11.2012 SD/- SD/- (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) (D.K. TYAGI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY N.K. CHAUDHARY, SR. P.S. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD 6. THE GUARD FILE BY ORDER AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD