Smt. Vimlesh Kumari, Farrukhabad V. I.T.O.-2, Farrukhabad

ITA 394/AGR/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 39420314 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-12-2011
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SOHAIL AKHTAR
• Assessee Lawyers: J L VERMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA (SMC) BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 394/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2005-06 SMT. VIMLESH KUMARI VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER-2, PROP. JITENDRA RICE MILLS, FARRUKHABAD. MOHAMMADABAD, FARRUKHABAD. (PAN : AMZPK 5691 E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI J.L. VERMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI SOHAIL AKHTAR, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 20.12.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20.12.2011 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25.07.2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD ON THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS : 1. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FAC TS IN DISMISSING ASSESSEES APPEAL EX PARTE WITHOUT PROPERLY APPRECI ATING THAT THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS A LADY WAS AILING AND CONFINED TO BED, AND SHE HAD APPLIED FOR ADJOURNMENT IMMEDIATELY ON RECEIVING NOTICE OF HEARING ON 19.07 .2011 WHILE THE HEARING OF APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR 20.07.2011. 2. THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATIN G ASSESSEES APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT POINTING OUT THAT NOTICE OF HEA RING WAS RECEIVED IN THE EVENING OF 19.07.2011 AND IT WAS NOT PRACTICABLE TO CONTACT HIS COUNSEL AT GHAZIABAD FOR ARGUING APPEAL AS SHE IS LIVING IN A REMOTE AREA OF FARRUKHABAD DISTT. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,20,724/- MADE BY THE LD. A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF AL LEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING WITHOUT PROPERLY APPREC IATING THAT SHE HAD SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD A.O. THAT SHE HAD TAKEN LOAN OF RS.1 LAC FROM U P SEHKARI GRAM VIKAS BANK LTD. FOR THE PURPOSE AND REST INVESTMENT OF RS.20724/- WAS OUT OF ASSESSEES PAST SAVING AND AGRICULTURE INCOME. 2 4. THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE ERRED IN LAW AN D ON FACTS IN NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THAT SHE MAINTAINS PROPER BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH HAVE BEEN DULY CHECKED BY THE LD A.O. WHO HAS NOT FOUND ANY OMISSION OR MISTAKE AND HAS NEITHER DISTURBED THE BUSINESS RESULTS NOR HAS FOUND ANY DISCREPANCY IN THE SAID BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS NOR HE HAS REJECTED THE SAME . HENCE, THE ADDITION IS UNLAWFUL. 5. THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE CASE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A.O. AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS HIGHLY UNJUST, IMPROP ER, UNLAWFUL WHICH DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON 25.07.2011 E XPARTE WITHOUT HEARING THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORI TY HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN FACT, THE ASSESSEE IS VERY MUCH INTERESTED TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM BEFORE THE REV ENUE AUTHORITIES WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, WHICH IS AVAILABLE WITH HER, BUT DUE TO NON-GRANTIN G OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE A STATEMENT THAT ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE ARE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTI ATING HER CLAIM WHICH IS IN DISPUTE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL AND HE REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE WHOM THE ASSESSEE WILL FILE ALL THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCES FOR SUBSTANTIATING HER CLAIM. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 3 5. AFTER HEARING THE BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSING THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD. FIRST A PPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION AS WELL AS ON MERI TS. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT AT BAR MADE BY SHRI J.L. VERMA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE REQUESTING FOR MORE OPPORTUNITY FOR SUBSTANTIATING THE CLAIM IN DISPUTE WITH THE SUPPOR T OF DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE INT EREST OF JUSTICE AND IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH HE HAS UN DERTAKEN TO CO-OPERATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND TO FILE NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDE NCE AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE PRESENTLY, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE DESERVES TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN LAW AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20.12.2011. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20 TH DECEMBER, 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY