Dr. Abhishek Manu Singhvi, NEW DELHI V. DCIT, JODHPUR

ITA 41/JODH/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5200 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 09-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L MOURYA
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR BEFORE: SHRI N. S. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO.41/JODH/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 DR. ABHISHEK MANNU SINGHVI, 1, MINERVA BUILDING, STATION ROAD, JODHPUR, PAN :ARBPS5014L VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1, JODHPUR, APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI AMIT KOTHARI, AR RESPONDENT BY SHRI S. L. MOURYA, DR DATE OF HEARING: 14.03.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.03.16 O R D E R PER: GEORGE MATHAN, J.M. : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT (A), JODHPUR DATED 28-11-2014 PASSED IN APPEAL NO.314/2010-11 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. SHRI AMIT KOTHARI, LEARNED AR REPRESENTED ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI S. L. MOURYA, LEARNED DR REPRESENTED ON BE HALF OF THE REVENUE. 3. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AR THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAD FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT (A) AS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE SAME BEFORE THE AO. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAD NOT ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. IT WAS A PRAYER THAT THE ISSUES IN THE APPEAL MAY BE 2 ITA NO.41/JODH/2015 RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION SO THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD PRODUCE THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO. TO THIS SUBMIS SION THE LEARNED DR DID NOT RAISE ANY SERIOUS OBJECTION. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. A PERU SAL OF GROUNDS NO.1 AND 2 OF THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOWS THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTEDLY FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BEFORE THE LE ARNED CIT (A). ADMITTEDLY, THESE EVIDENCES WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL M UST BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR RE-ADJUDICATION AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO PRODU CE ALL SUCH EVIDENCES AS ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE AO. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.03.2016. SD/- SD/- (N. S. SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JODHPUR, DATED: 14 TH MARCH, 2016 LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA LAKSHMIKANTA DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/ DEKA/- -- - 3 ITA NO.41/JODH/2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT CONCERNED 4. CIT (A) CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER, SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 14.03.16 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 15.03.16 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 15 .03.16 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 15.03. 16 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 15.03.16 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT NA SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER