ITo, New Delhi V. M/s Ganguly Brothers (Shipra Mall), New Delhi

ITA 4248/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6700 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 15-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV KWATRA
• Assessee Lawyers: UMESH CHAND DUBEY
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-2, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 4248/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. M/S GANGULY BROTHERS, WARD 52(1), (SHIPRA MALL) NEW DELHI 19, GUJRAT VIHAR, VIKAS MARG, NEW DELHI 110 001 (PAN: AAGFG7085B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. UMESH CHAND DUBEY, SR . DR DEPARTMENT BY : SH. SANJEEV KWATRA, CA DATE OF HEARING : 22-09-2016 DATE OF ORDER : 25-10-2016 ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7.4.2015 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-18, NEW DELHI RELATING T O ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDE R:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IGNORING THE RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES WITHOUT GRANTING OPPOR TUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE SAME. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00, 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK FOUND OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ALC AND SURRENDERED DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. 2 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,41, 791/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES BEING 20% OF THE EXPENSES IGNOR ING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS AN D DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,18, 960/- ADDITION MADE IN FIXED ASSETS BEING UN-VOUCHED AND UNSUPPORTED BY THE BILLS AND VOUCHERS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,05, 400/- ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF STOCK IN THE ABSENCE OF STO CK REGISTER AND REQUISITE DETAILS. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,00 ,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS IGNORING THE FACT THAT T HE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH CONFIRMATION AND PROVE C REDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,35 ,972/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND DEBITORS IGNORING T HE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE CONFIRMATIO N AND PRODUCE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS 3. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. DR HAS STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IGNORING THE RUL E 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, WITHOUT GRANTING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO EXAMINE T HE SAME. HENCE, HE 3 REQUESTED THAT THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET AS IDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO EXAMINE THE AFRESH. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. AR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND STATED THAT HE HAS PASSED A WELL REASONED ORDER WH ICH DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE ON MY PART, HENCE THE SAME MAY BE UPHE LD. 6. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RE CORDS, ESPECIALLY THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE GIVIN G HIS FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO. 1 TO 5 VIDE PARA NO. 1.13 AT PAGE NO. 10 IN HIS IMPUGNED ORDER AND HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 1.13 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ABOVE DISCUSS ED SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE SAME AS WOULD BE BORNE OUT FROM FACTS ON RECORD. THE APPELLANT WAS DEPRIVED OF REASONABLE AND SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE. HOWEVER, THE SAID OPPORTUNITY HAS BEEN NOW PROVIDED BY ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH HAS BEEN DULY CONFRONTED TO THE AO FOR REBUTTAL, AN D THEREAFTER SUBSTANTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE BEING ADJUDICATED ON MERITS OF THE CASE. 6.1 IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND IG NORED THE RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES WITHOUT GRANTING OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO T O EXAMINE THE SAME WHICH IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, AN OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GRANTED TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND GIVE HIS FINDING TH EREAFTER. ACCORDINGLY, I REMIT BACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF TH E AO TO CONSIDER THE SAME 4 AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORT UNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED T O PRODUCE ALL THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES/ DOCUMENTS ETC. BEFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANT IATE HIS CLAIM AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO DURING THE PROCEEDINGS. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/10/2016. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 25/10/2016 *SR BHATNAGAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR 5