Smt. Sushma Garg, Bathinda V. The Income-tax Officer, Bathinda

ITA 396/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8788 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-06-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J K GUPTA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Assessment record

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (SMC). BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.396(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 PAN: ACTPG8788Q SMT. SUSHMA GARG, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, OPP. URANG CINEMA, WARD 1(1), AMRIK SINGH ROAD, BATHINDA. BATHINDA. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH.J.K. GUPTA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 21/03/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22/03/2016 ORDER THIS IS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11 AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2014, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), BATHINDA. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A DDITION OF RS.4,26,000/-. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A DDITION OF RS.1,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF BIANA WHEN THE SAME WAS RECEIVED ON 26.10.2004. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A DDITION OF RS.30,719/- WHEN THE SAME WERE NOT CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE. ITA NO.396(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 2 4. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT GIVING THE SET OFF OF THE TRADING ADDITION OF RS.3,31,000/- (RS.1,81,000/ - + RS.1,50,000/-) WITH THE CASH CREDIT ADDITION OF RS.2,45,000/-. 5. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT GIVING THE CLAIM OF INTEREST ON HBA U/S 24(1) AND PAYMENT OF HBA U/S 8 0C OF THE ACT EVEN THOUGH CLAIM WAS MADE FOR THE FIRST TI ME BEFORE HIM. 2. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED AT THE BAR THAT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUES PERTAINING TO GROUND NOS. 1 & 2, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO AND RELIED ON A REMAND REPOR T DATED 24.03.2014 FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BY THE AO. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE SAID REMAND REPORT IS DATED 24.03.2014, IT WAS SENT BY THE AO TO THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE LETTER NO.32, DATED 21.04.2014. THE LD. COUNSEL POINTS OUT THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEING DATED 27.03. 2014, THERE WAS NO WAY THAT THE LD. CIT(A) COULD HAVE CONSIDERED THIS REM AND REPORT OF THE AO WHILE PASSING THE SAID ORDER. IN THIS REGARD, IT HA S BEEN CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION BEFORE THE AO FOR ISSUANCE OF CERTIFICATE OF DATE OF FILING THE REMAND REPORT BE FORE THE LD. CIT(A), IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, THE AO HAS ISSUED A LETTER NO. W ARD-1(1)/BTI/2015- 16/3182 DATED 16.03.2016, A COPY WHEREOF HAS BEEN P LACED ON RECORD. 3. THE SAID LETTER READS AS FOLLOWS: SMT. SUSHMA GARG, OPP. URANG CINEMA, AMRIK SINGH ROAD, AMRITSAR. ITA NO.396(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 3 MADAM, SUB: APPLICATION FOR THE ISSUE OF CERTIFICATE OF THE DATE OF FILING THE REMAND REPORT ON 21.04.2014 REGARDING. KINDLY REFER TO THE SUBJECT CITED ABOVE. AS PER RECORD OF THIS OFFICE, THE REMAND REPORT WAS SENT FOR APPROVAL TO THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, R ANGE-1, BATHINDA, VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER NO.1423 DATED 24. 03.2014. AFTER GETTING THE REMAND REPORT APPROVED, AS PER HIS DIRE CTION, THE REMAND REPORT WAS SENT TO THE CIT(A), BATHINDA VIDE LETTER NO. 32 DATED 21.04.2014. YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (L.D. BANSAL) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1), BATHINDA. 4. THE ASSESSMENT RECORD HAD ALSO BEEN SUMMONED FOR THE PURPOSE. THEREFROM, THE CONTENTS OF THE AFORESAID LETTER DAT ED 16.03.2016 ISSUED BY THE AO HAVE NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE WRONG. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ENTIRE MATTER CONCERNI NG ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE US, I.E., GROUND NOS. 1 TO 5, IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO, TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ON AFFORDING DUE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE . THE ASSESSEE SHALL, NOT DOUBT, CO-OPERATE IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS BEFORE THE AO. ALL PLEAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE LAW, INCLUDING THE ASSERTIONS MADE IN THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FIL ED BEFORE ME, SHALL REMAIN AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.396(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 4 6. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/03/ 2 016. SD/- (A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22/03/2016 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SMT. SUSHMA GARH, BATHINDA 2. THE ITO WARD 1(1), BATHINDA. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.