Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 50418 (ITAT-AGRA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
18 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
22-11-2011
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
22-11-2011
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
04-11-2011
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 421/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2008-09 SHRI HARENDRA SINGH JADON, VS. INCOME-TAX OFFIC ER, CHODE KA HANUMAN SHIVPURI CHAR SAHAR KA NAKA, HAZIRA, GWALIOR. (PAN : AHJPJ 2427 L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI RAJENDRA SHARMA, ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI A.K. SHARMA, JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 22.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.11.2011 ORDER PER BENCH: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26.09.2011 OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), GWALIOR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND S : 1. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS BEEN ARBITRARY AND UNJUST WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.29,5 9,000/- AS MADE BY THE AO. NO ADDITION IS LIABLE TO BE MADE, ADDITION MADE AND SU STAINED BY CIT(APPEALS) IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS NOT APPRECIATED THE EVIDENCES, DOCUMENTS FILED IN SUPPORT OF HIS EX PLANATION TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS MADE IN THE BANK A/C, AFTER TAKING INTO CO NSIDERATION THE EVIDENCES, DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM, NO ADDITION IS LIABLE T O BE SUSTAINED. ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IS LIABLE TO BE DELET ED. 3. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CIT(APPEALS) THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED VARIOUS DETAILS BY WHIC H IT WAS FULLY EXPLAINED THAT THE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK A/C AT SHIVPURI HAS DULY BEEN I NCORPORATED IN HIS BOOKS OF A/C REPRESENTS CASH SALES FROM HIS LIQUOR BUSINESS. NOT CONSIDERATION AND BRUSH ASIDE OF THE EVIDENCES ADDUCED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) IS AGAINST THE LAW AND OF 2 NATURAL JUSTICE, DOCUMENTS EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE C IT(APPEALS) EXPLAINING THE DEPOSITS ARE LIABLE TO BE CONSIDERED/ENTERTAINED AN D THEREAFTER THE DECISION WAS TO BE DELIVERED, WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE PROPER EVIDENCES BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), RELATED TO TH E DEPOSIT IN THE BANK A/C. THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(APPEALS) IS HIGHLY UNJUSTIF IED. ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY HIM IS LIABLE 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, SHRI RAJENDRA SHARMA, AD VOCATE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLANT, STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS W RONGLY REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/R 46A WITHOUT ANY BASIS, WHICH IS AG AINST THE LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE. HE REQUESTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AFRESH UNDER LAW AFTER PROVIDING OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE ALL EVIDENCES AS THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPE LLATE AUTHORITY, WHICH HAS WRONGLY BEEN REJECTED BY HER. HE HAS ALSO FILED SMALL PAPER BOOK IN WHICH HE HAS ALSO FILED SMALL PAPER BOOK IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED AFFIDAVIT OF HARENDRA SINGH J ADON AND COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP FOR FILING OF RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE R OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. AFTER HEARING THE BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT RECORD AVAILABLE WITH US, ESPECIALLY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT SLIP FOR FILING OF RETURN FOR A.Y. 2008-09, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED O PINION THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING RIGHT TO ESTABLISH HIS CASE BEFO RE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BY FILING NECESSARY 3 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. WE FIND THAT THE REVENUE AUTH ORITIES HAVE NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM. 6. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO PASSED THE ORDER U/S. 144 ON 25.11.2011 AND THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS ALSO REJECTED THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HER ON MERELY A TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE, AND THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MA TTER REQUIRES THOROUGH INVESTIGATION AT THE LEVEL OF ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE IN DISPUT E AFRESH UNDER LAW AFTER GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.11.2011. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22 ND NOVEMBER, 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
