K Odaiah & Sons, Hyderabad V. ITO, Karimnagar

ITA 383/HYD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 53789 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2011
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-03-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B V PRASAD REDDY
• Assessee Lawyers: RAVI SESHAGIRI RAO
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.383/HYD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 SHRI K. ODAIAH & SONS, GODAVARIKHANI. (PAN AAKFK 4896 K) VS THE ITO, WARD 4, KARIMNAGAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAVI SESHA GIRI RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B.V. PRASAD REDDY DATE OF HEARING : 30.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2011 ORDER PER BENCH: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) III, HYDERA BAD DATED 29.12.2009 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW . 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE PRODUCE BEFORE HIM. HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED TH E FACT THAT THE RETURNS OF PARTNERS WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT WAS PREPARED FROM OUT OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITA NO.383/H/2010 SHRI K. ODAIAH & SONS, GODAVARIKHANI 2 3. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.27 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT REPRESENTING THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE PARTNERS. 4. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE SEEN THAT SUCH INVESTME NT IS MADE BY THE PARTNERS TOWARDS THEIR CAPITAL AND A LL OF THEM HAVE EXPLAINED THE SOURCES BY FILING THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS ACCOUNT. HE OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM AND ACCEPTED THE CREDITS INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNERS AGGREGATING TO RS.27 LAKHS. 5. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2,77,078/- BEING INTEREST PAID TO PARTNERS. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE STATED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY R EJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A(1) OF THE IT RULES, 1962. HE FURTHER STATED TH AT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS VERY M UCH ESSENTIAL FOR DISPOSING OFF THIS CASE CORRECTLY ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. HE REQUESTED THAT A DIRECTION MAY BE GIVE N TO THE CIT(A) TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND DECIDE THE ISSUE A FRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CI T(A). ITA NO.383/H/2010 SHRI K. ODAIAH & SONS, GODAVARIKHANI 3 5. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING TH E RELEVANT RECORD AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH US, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY REJE CTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A(1) OF THE IT RULES, 1962 BY UPHOLDIN G THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLOWED SUFFICIENT TIME TO THE ASSESSEE FOR PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT AVAILED THE SAME AND T HE CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING ON THE DECISIONS RENDERED BY THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF C. UNNIKRISHNAN VS. CIT(233 ITR 483) (K ER) & ALSO THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF FAIRDEAL FILAMENTS LTD., VS. CIT (302 ITR 173(GUJ.). AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESS EE WITH APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A(1) OF THE RULES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE VERY MUCH ESSENTIAL TO ADJUDICATE ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE. T HEREFORE, WE ARE ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS P RODUCED IN THE FORM OF A PAPER BOOK BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALS O GONE THROUGH THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED IN ITS PAPER BOOK AT P AGE NOS.246 & 247. THE REASONS MENTIONED THE PETITION ARE SUFFICIENT AND GOOD ENOUGH FOR ADMITTING THE SAME A S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, WE ARE ACCEPTING T HE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH A DI RECTION TO THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN DISPUTE AF TER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED DURING T HE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO.383/H/2010 SHRI K. ODAIAH & SONS, GODAVARIKHANI 4 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON : 30.11.2011 SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) ( H.S. SIDHU ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 30 TH NOVEMBER, 2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI S. RAMA RAO, ADVOCATE, 102, SHRIYAS ELEGANCE , DOOR NO.3-6-643, ST. NO.9, HIMAYATNAGAR, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ITO, WARD 4, KARIMNAGAR 3. THE CIT(A) III, HYDERABAD 4. THE CIT, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD NP/