Kashmiri Lal, Karnal V. ITO, Karnal

ITA 3716/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1242 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 31-01-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 18-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHUMANA SEN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `D : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3716/DEL./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) KASHMIRI LAL, VS. ITO, WARD 1, PROP. H.P. MAHALAXMI FILLING STATION, KARNAL. G.T. ROAD, KARNAL. (PAN/GIR NO.ABSPG9349P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : MS. SHUMANA SEN, SR.DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, JM THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), KARNAL, DATED 30.04.2012, RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2009-10, WHEREBY FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED: 1. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN NOT PROPERLY ADJUDICATING THE APPELLANTS GRIEVANCE RAISED IN MA KING AN ADHOC ADDITION OF RS.1,05,000/- ON ADHOC BASIS. THE SAME IS PRAYE D TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN WRON G IN MAKING THE UNDER NOTED DISALLOWANCE, WHICH HAVE WRONGLY BEEN NOT CONSIDERE D BY THE CIT(A) WHILE DISPOSING THE APPEAL AS DISMISSED. (I) RS.80,221/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON BORROWED LOANS TREATING THE TRUCK INCOME AS INCOME U/S 44AE OF THE ACT, AS AGAINST REGULAR INCOME AND NOT PRESUMPTIVE AS PER FORM NO .3CD (PARA.10) APPENDED WITH THE RETURN. (II) RS.28,668/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRUCK INSURANCE, TAK ING INTO AID OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AE OF THE ACT. (III) RS.5,000/- OUT OF INTEREST I.T.A. NO.3716/DEL./2012 (A.Y.: 2009-10) 2 (IV) RS.900/- OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES; (V) RS.21,400/- OUT OF CAR EXPENDITURE AND DEPRECIA TION THEREON ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED PERSONAL USE AND OTHER EXPENSES. 3. THAT THE APPELLANT RESERVES ITS RIGHT TO AMEND, ALTER OR MODIFY/ELOBORATE THE GROUNDS BEFORE DISPOSAL OF THE APPEAL. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT ASS ESSEE MOVED ONE APPLICATION SEEKING PERMISSION TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL GROUND OF AP PEAL AND IN SUPPORT THEREOF, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE IS 78 YEARS OF AGE AS ON 30 .09.2009 AND BEING TOTALLY BLIND, IS ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION U/S 80U OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 IN THE AMOUNT OF RS.75,000/- IN COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME, SUBJECT TO CONDITION PROVID ED UNDER THE ACT, READ WITH OF RULES. THE ASSESSEE BEING OF ADVANCE AGE AND TOTALLY BLIND MAN WAS NOT AWARE OF THE TECHNICALITIES OF LAW NOR ADVISED BY THE LEGAL PERS ONNEL ENGAGED IN FILING RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT AND OFFERED CORRECT INCOME AS WELL AS CLAIMED LEGITIMATE DEDUCTIONS FROM THE INCOME AS PER RELEVA NT PROVISIONS OF LAW. AND ON THE ADVICE RECEIVED NOW, HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR A DDITIONAL GROUND FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80U OF THE ACT, AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. SO FAR AS OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE CONCE RNED, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR LACK OF PROPER ADVICE, THE CASE COULD NOT BE PROPERLY CONT ESTED. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ORDERS OF AUTHORIT IES BELOW MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED BACK ON THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION OF THE CASE. 3. LD.DR HAS BEEN HEARD, WHO RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. SHE DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION IN CASE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE ADMITTED AND MATTER IS RESTORED BACK TO BE DECIDED AFRESH AS PER PROVISIONS OF LAW. 4. AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERIN G THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR ADJUDICATION, IN WH ICH ASSESSEE CONTENDED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND WAS NOT AWARE OF THE LEGAL PROVISION S OF THE MATTER AND EVEN LEGITIMATE DEDUCTION U/S 80U OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF BEING TO TALLY BLIND HAS OMITTED TO HAVE BEEN CLAIMED AND AGITATED IN ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS AS WEL L AS IN APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. SO, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TO HAVE FAIR PLAY IN THE MA TTER, IT WILL MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, IF ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW ARE SET ASIDE AND MATTE R IS RESTORED BACK ON THE FILE OF THE I.T.A. NO.3716/DEL./2012 (A.Y.: 2009-10) 3 ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKING FRESH ASSESSMENT IN AC CORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 5. AS A RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE G ETS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 15.02.2013. SD/- SD/- (T.S. KAPOOR) (U.B.S. BEDI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : FEB. 15, 2013 SKB COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(CONCERNED) 4. CIT(A), KARNAL. 5. CIT(ITAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT