Bharath Kumar Nakka, Ghaziabad V. ACIT, Circle-69(1), New Delhi

ITA 4066/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6887 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: S KRISHNA DASAN; BHARAT KUMAR NAKKA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4066/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 BHARATH KUMAR NAKKA, VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 69(1), FLAT NO. SF-4, SAI KUTIR NEW DELHI (BESIDES BSNL EXCHNAGE ON GT ROAD,) PLOT NO. 14,15,16, SHAHID NAGAR GHAZIABAD (PAN: ACOPN7964N) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. S. KRISHNA DASAN, CA & SH . BHARAT KUMAR NAKKA, ASSESSEE REVENUE BY : SH. SL ANURAGI, SR. DR. ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 01.5.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-21, NEW DELHI PERTAINI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- I) THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITION OF 9 LAK HS TO MY INCOME BY AO, WITHOUT APPLYING HER MIND INTO THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY ME DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS . II) THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING MY EVIDENCE AS IT WAS NOT FILED UNDER RULE 46A. 2 III) THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN APPROVING THE ORDER OF THE AO THAT I CONCEALED INCOME. IV) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, A MEND, MODIFY, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE AND / OR RESCIND ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE FINAL HEARIN G, IF NECESSARY SO ARISES. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEAT ED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT IT IS A CASE WHERE THE ID. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN REJECTING ANY EVIDENCE AS IT WAS NOT UNDER RULE 46A WHICH WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND WHICH ARE VERY ESSENTIAL IN CONSIDERING THE ISSUES IN DISPUT E AND THEREFORE, REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AND ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, AFTE R GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, BUT HAVE NOT RAISED ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION ON THE ADMISSION OF EVIDENCES AND THE APPLICATION U/R 46A FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS ESPECIALLY THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IN COME TAX RULES FILED BEFORE ME ENCLOSING THEREWITH THE PROCEEDINGS OF ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU, HYDERABAD DATED 2.7.2012/ COPY O F AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES FATHER AND P. YADAGIRI RAO A ND P. BALAKRISHNA, WHICH ARE ADDITIONAL / FRESH EVIDENCE , AS THE SAME COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO DUE TO ILLNESS OF THE HIS MOTHER; 3 DIFFICULTY IN COLLECTION OF THE DOCUMENT FROM ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU AND SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT GIVEN BY THE AO. I FIN D CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ADDI TIONAL / FRESH EVIDENCE, AS AFORESAID DUE TO REASONS GIVEN AS MENT IONED ABOVE. I FURTHER NOTE THAT NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED TH E COPIES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SHAPE OF APPLICATIO N U/R 46A AND WHICH ARE VERY MUCH RELEVANT AND ESSENTIAL IN ADJUD ICATING THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I A DMIT THE SAME AND SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME, AFRESH, AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 03-01-2019. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :03-01-2019 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI. 4