Sh. Gopal Singh, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3709/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7272 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 13-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K K JAISWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ITIKA MEHRA

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-3: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3709/DEL/2014 A.Y. : 2009-10 SH. GOPAL SINGH, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-26( 3) D-159, NEAR SOLANKI MARKET NEW DELHI MADHU VIHAR, POST OFFICE UTTAM NAGAR, NEW DELHI 110 059 (PAN:BHDPS2507M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. MOHIT KUMAR, CA & ITIKA MEHRA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : SH. KK JAISWAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 15-06-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 15-06-2016 O R D E R PER H.S. SIDHU, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 26.3.2014 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-XXIV, NEW DEL HI RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NO NEED TO REPEAT HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. PAGE 2 OF 4 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSE E DRAW MY ATTENTION TOWARDS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE THEM, INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE DOCUMENT ARY EVIDENCES IN HIS POSSESSION. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILE D AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46 ALONGIWTH THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE FOR S UBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS WRONGLY BEEN RE JECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS. THEREFORE, HE REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MA Y BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER T HE LAW, AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCING THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF T HE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RELEV ANT RECORDS AVAILABLE WITH. I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AO AS WELL A S LD. CIT(A) BOTH HAVE NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBSTANTIAT ING ITS CLAIM BEFORE THEM, INSPITE OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E IS HAVING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES IN HIS POSSESSION. I FURTHER N OTE THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46 ALON GWITH THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM OF TH E ASSESSEE WHICH HAS WRONGLY BEEN REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT ANY BASIS WHICH IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS. IN THE INTEREST OF JUST ICE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES I N HIS POSSESSION PAGE 3 OF 4 AND ALSO THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46 ALONGWITH N ECESSARY EVIDENCES GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND WOULD BE VERY MUCH RELEVANT TO DECIDE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT APPEAL, HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I ADMIT THE SAME, IN VIEW OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MANISH BUILDWELL 245 CTR 397 AND THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS REMITTED BACK TO THE FI LE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER LAW, AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15-06-2016. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 15/6/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4.CIT (A) 5. DR , ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES PAGE 4 OF 4