SMT. MANIK VINOD BHOOT, Nagpur V. ITO WARD-5(3), Nagpur

ITA 43/NAG/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 93411 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NARENDRA KANE
• Assessee Lawyers: V V SARANJAME
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 43/NAG/2014 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. BEFORE SHRI MUKUL K. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 43/NAG/2014 ASSESSMENT YE AR : 200 9 - 10. MANIK VINOD BHUT THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER, 158, BHOOT HOUSE, SHANKAR NAGAR, V/S. WARD - 5(3), NAGPUR. NAGPUR. PAN ABNPB 0828K APPELLANT RESPONDENT. APPELLANT BY : SHRI V.V. SARANJAME. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NARENDRA KANE. DATE OF HEARING : 0 5 - 0 6 - 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 TH JUNE, 2015 O R D E R PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) II, NAGPUR DATED 17 - 10 - 2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH WENT TO THE 2 ITA NO. 43/NAG/2014 ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THE HONOURABLE COURT BE PLEASED TO DELETE TH E ADDITION OF ` .3,88,920/ - CONFIRMED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). WITH PREJUDICE TO THE FOREGOING GROUND AND ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF JUTE CORPORATION OF INDIA V/S. CIT IN 187 I.T.R. 668 AS REGARDS APPRECIATION OF FRESH EVIDENCE AND THIS HONOURABLE COURT BE PLEASED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` .3,88,920/ - . 2. IN THIS CASE THE ISSUE IS RELATED TO SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AMOUNTING TO ` .31,77,940/ - . SOURCE AS TO HOUSING LOAN FROM S.B.I. AMOUNTING TO ` .24 LAKHS WAS ACCEPTED. IN ABSENCE OF EXPLANATION FOR THE REMAINING SOURCE OF INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO ` .7,77,940/ - THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE THE ADDITION. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE SOURCE WAS AS UNDER : I) SUM OF ` .24,00,000/ - WAS TAKEN FROM SBI, JAIPRAKASH NAGAR, NAGPUR AS HOUSING LOAN. II) SUM OF ` .6,00,000/ - WAS TAKEN FROM SUNEETHI VITTAL BHOOT, THE MOTHER - IN - LAW OF APPELLANT SHE IS THE RETIRED EMPLOYEE, MSEP, NAGPUR. III) SUM OF ` .1,00,000/ - APPELLANTS OWN INVESTMENT. (IV) AND SUM OF ` .77,940/ - INVESTMENT BY HUSBAND OF ASSESSEE SRI VINOD BHOOT . 3 ITA NO. 43/NAG/2014 IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE WIT H REGARD TO THE SUM OF ` .7,77,940/ - THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADDED ` .3,88,920/ - BEING UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 AS THE ASSESSEE WAS 50% OWNER OF THE SAID PROPERTY. 3. BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BUT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. LEARNED COUNSEL OF THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO SOME PROBLEM WITH THE PREVIOUS COUNSEL OF T HE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE WAS NO T PROPERLY REPRESENTED AT THE LEVEL OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. HOWEVER, HE REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED AND CLAIMED THAT NOW ALL COGENT EVIDENCES AR E AVAILABLE FOR THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. HE PRAYED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOW BEING SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED D.R. HAS BEEN HE ARD. 5. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT INTEREST OF JUSTICE WOULD BE SERVED IF THE MATTER IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES NOW BEING SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NEEDLESS TO ADD THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 4 ITA NO. 43/NAG/2014 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH JUNE, 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (MUKUL K. SHRAWA T) (SHAMIM YAHYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER NAGPUR, DATED: 26 TH JUNE , 2015. COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE. 2. REVENUE. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT, NAGPUR. 5. THE D.R., ITAT, NAGPUR. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, NAGPUR WAKODE