Sri. H.S. Suresh, Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Bangalore

ITA 37/BANG/2021

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Shri H.S. Suresh against the orders of the CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru, for the assessment years 2008-09 and 2012-13. The primary contention in the appeals was the non-consideration of additional evidence submitted by the assessee during the appellate proceedings. The CIT(A) had rejected the additional evidence on the grounds that no satisfactory reason was provided for its late submission, and thus confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not adequately adhered to the principles of natural justice in deciding the appeals on merits without considering the additional evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the matter back to the CIT(A) for a detailed examination of the additional evidence and to pass a reasoned order thereafter.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124404 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-11-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 37 & 39/Bang/2021 Assessment Years : 2008-09 & 2012-13 Shri H.S. Suresh, No. 25, Manchammamahal, Dollar’s Colony, Nandini Layout, Bengaluru – 560 022. PAN: AEUPS8116H Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1[4], Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue by : Dr. Manjunath Karkihalli, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 09-11-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 29-11-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals are filed by assessee against separate orders dated 14/12/2020 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-11, Bengaluru for A.Ys. 2008-09 and 2012-13. 2. Without going into the merits of the case at the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that additional evidences were filed before the Page 2 ITA Nos. 37 & 39/Bang/2021 Ld.CIT(A) however the same were not considered by observing as under: “15. The AO has made the additions for want of confirmations from the persons from whom the appellant claims to have received the monies. The appellant has filed certain additional evidences during the course of this appeal in support of his stand. These additional evidences, filed now, cannot be admitted as the appellant has not given any satisfactory reason as to why the same could not be filed during the course of assessment proceeding. The addition made thus stands confirmed.” 3. The above observation has been made by Ld.CIT(A) in the impugned order for A.Y. 2008-09. 4. For A.Y. 2012-13, the assessee had filed additional evidence before the Ld.CIT(A) which is placed at pages 54-97 of the paper book and for A.Y. 2008-09, the additional evidence filed before the Ld.CIT(A) is placed at pages 42-60. On perusal of the impugned orders for both the years under consideration, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) has decided the issue on merits without admitting the additional evidence by observing that the same were not filed before the Ld.AO. 4.1 In our opinion, the Ld.CIT(A) should have admitted the additional evidence and should have called for a remand report from the Ld.AO in respect of the same. Principles of natural justice has not been followed in its true sense while deciding the issue on merits and therefore we are inclined to remand these appeals back to Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) shall call for a remand report from the Ld.AO, cause necessary verification in respect of issues alleged by the assessee on merits, then pass a reasoned order in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee. Page 3 ITA Nos. 37 & 39/Bang/2021 5. We also note that the legal issue is raised by the assessee which is kept open, as the issue on the merit has been remanded to the Ld.AO. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee on merits stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29 th November, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (PADMAVATHY S) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 29 th November, 2022. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore