Virendra Kumar , Meerut V. ITO, Ward- 2(4), Meerut

ITA 3670/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2911 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B S ANANT
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3670/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 VIRENDRA KUMAR, VS. ITO, WARD 2(4), MEERUT C/O M/S SANJAY KUMAR & CO., CAS 318, SADAR BUNDELA, DALMANDI, MEERUT CANTT., MERRUT UTTAR PRADESH (PAN: AQXPK3254H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. C.S. ANAND, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. B.S. ANANT, SR. DR ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 15.3.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A), MEERUT PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 147 IS ILL EGAL. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DENIED NATURAL JUSTICE TO T HE ASSESSEE, BY NOT ADMITTING/ ENTERTAINING THE AFFIDA VIT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS A CRUCIAL EVIDENCE RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 3. THAT WITH A VIEW TO IMPART JUSTICE, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAD ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE A FORMAL APPLICATION U/S. 46A FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 4. THAT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNDER THE LAW, T HE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 15,80,000/-, WHICH WAS MADE BY THE AO IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISBELIEVING THE FACT NARRATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SH. MEHMOOD KHAN HAS DEPOSITED THE CA SH OF RS. 14,60,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSES SEE FOR GETTING ISSUED THE BS/DD IN FAVOUR OF UP SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION FOR PURCHASE OF COAL OF RS. 1,20,000/- DEPOSITED BY M/S MEERUT BRICK FIELD WHER E THE ASSESSEE WAS EMPLOYEE FOR EXPENSES OF THE FIRM. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING T HAT SIMPLY BECAUSE SH. MEHMOOD KHAN DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AO, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. NOTE THE ASSESSEE CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND/ MODIFY AFOREMENTIONED GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND / OR TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUND(S) OF APPEAL, AT ANY TIME PRIOR TO / DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEAT ED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE HAS STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A), BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN REJECTED ON THE GROUN D THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT MOVED THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ALONGWITH T HE APPLICATION U/R 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE ME WITH THE APPLICATION DATED 24.9.2018 UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF AFFI DAVIT OF SH. KAILASH S/ O SHIRDHAR JAMUNHEE; AFFIDAVIT OF NASIB KHAN S/O SH. JIMIDAR KHAN; AFFIDAVIT OF CHATARPAL S/O SH. LAL BA HADUR; KHATA 3 KHATAUNI BEARING SL. NO. 00075 AND 00005 IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN VILLAGE / PARGANE PERSOHNA (NANPA RA) TEHSIL MINIPURVA, MOTIPUR, BEHRAICH (UP) OWNED BY MAHMOOD KHAN; PAY SLIPS, THROUGH WHICH CASH OF RS. 3,90,000/- ON 10.1 10.2012 AND RS. 7,00,000/- ON 10.11.2012 WERE DEPOSITED BY MAHMOOD KHAN IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN GURGATTA BRANCH (NE HRAICH) OF ALLAHABAD BANK; AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SORUCE OF OBTAINING TWO PAY IN SLIPS (AS REFERRED ABOVE). LD . COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESEEE STATED THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES MAY BE ADMITTED AND ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE LD. CIT(A ) TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF B EING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, BUT HAVE NOT RAISED ANY OBJECTION ON THE A DMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. IN FIND THAT SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A ), BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD N OT MOVED THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ALONGWITH THE APPLICATION U/R 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962. BUT BEFORE ME, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WITH THE APPLICATION DATED 24. 9.2018 UNDER RULE 29 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIO NAL DOCUMENTS IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF AFFIDAVIT OF SH. KAILASH S/ O SHIRDHAR JAMUNHEE; AFFIDAVIT OF NASIB KHAN S/O SH. JIMIDAR KHAN; AFFIDAVIT OF CHATARPAL S/O SH. LAL BAHADUR; KHATA K HATAUNI BEARING SL. NO. 00075 AND 00005 IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATED IN VILLAGE / PARGANE PERSOHNA (NANPARA) TEHSIL MINIP URVA, MOTIPUR, BEHRAICH (UP) OWNED BY MAHMOOD KHAN; PAY SLIPS, THR OUGH WHICH CASH OF RS. 3,90,000/- ON 10.110.2012 AND RS. 7,00, 000/- ON 10.11.2012 WERE DEPOSITED BY MAHMOOD KHAN IN THE B ANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IN GURGATTA BRANCH (NEHRAICH) OF AL LAHABAD BANK; AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SOURCE OF OBTAI NING TWO PAY IN 4 SLIPS (AS REFERRED ABOVE), WHICH ARE VERY ESSENTIA L TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. HENCE, I ADMIT THE SAME AND SET A SIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE TH E SAME AFRESH, AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 05-11-2018. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :05-11-2018 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.