Smt. Hemavathi, Bangalore V. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle- 1(4), Bangalore

ITA 41/BANG/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1401 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYADARSHI MISHRA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 41 & 42/Bang/2021 Assessment Years : 2009-10 & 2012-13 Smt. Hemavathi, No. 25, Manchammamahal, Dollar’s Colony, Nandini Layout, Bangalore – 560 022. PAN: ABIPH5181J Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1[4], Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of Hearing : 24-05-2022 Date of Pronouncement : 30-06-2022 ORDER PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Present appeals are filed by assessee against two separate orders both dated 01.12.2020 passed by Ld.CIT(A)-11, Bangalore for A.Ys. 2009-10 & 2012-13. 2. At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that the legal issue raised challenging the jurisdiction of notice issued u/s. 153C has not been decided by the Ld.CIT(A). Referring to the grounds raised before the Ld.CIT(A) i.e. reproduced in the impugned order at page Page 2 of 4 ITA Nos. 41 & 42/Bang/2021 6, the Ld.AR submitted that, nothing has been expressed on the legal issue challenged by assessee. Further, the Ld.AR also filed before us, application under Rule 46A, wherein, copies of the ledger account demonstrating payments made to Shri Ramdas from the group concerns of assessee has been filed. The Ld.AR submitted that these additional evidences demonstrates payments made by the assessee and her husband for purchase of property form the available cash balance in the group concern, in which, both of them were active. The Ld.AR emphasised that, the assessee could not procure these details at the time of assessment proceedings and therefore the same were not could not be submitted even before the Ld.CIT(A). He thus prayed for the admission of additional evidence now filed before this Tribunal. 3. The Ld.DR on the contrary, opposed for the admission of these documents. The Ld.DR in respect of the legal issue that the same has not been adjudicated by the Ld.CIT(A) submitted that the same may be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A). 4. We have perused the submissions advanced by both sides in the light of records placed before us. 5. We note that the ledger accounts filed before this Tribunal is submitted to be in support of the alleged payments made by the assessee towards land purchase. We are therefore of the opinion that, these additional evidences would be necessary to adjudicate the additions made in the hands of the assessee pertaining to the unexplained investments. These documents were admittedly filed before Ld.CIT(A), however were not considered. Page 3 of 4 ITA Nos. 41 & 42/Bang/2021 Accordingly, we admit the additional evidence filed by assessee which is placed at pages 67 to 74 of the paper book. 6. Based on the submissions made by both sides, we are of the opinion that all the issue needs to be remanded to the Ld.CIT(A) for fresh consideration. The Ld.CIT(A) shall pass a reasoned order in respect of all the issues raised based on necessary verification and evidences filed by assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) shall call upon the details required to adjudicate the issues alleged by the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) is directed to pass a detailed order on all the issues challenged after granting proper opportunity of being heard to assessee. Any other issues on legality is kept open. Accordingly, the grounds raised by assessee before this Tribunal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands party allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 30 th June, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (BEENA PILLAI) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 30 th June, 2022. /MS / Page 4 of 4 ITA Nos. 41 & 42/Bang/2021 Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 3. CIT 6. Guard file By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore