Sanjay Dewan, Noida V. ITO, Ward- 2(3), Meerut

ITA 4476/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1904 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: V K GOEL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-4476/DEL/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2010-11) SANJAY DEWAN, NOIDA C/O SH. VINOD KR. GOEL, ADV., 282, BOUNDARY ROAD, CIVIL LINES, MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH. PAN NO. AALPD8399Q (APPELLANT) VS ITO, WARD 2(3), MEERUT. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI V.K. GOEL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 24.05.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A), MEERUT RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,46,600/- WAS MADE WITHO UT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT PAYMENT OF MUTUAL FUND WA S MADE OUT OF BANK WITHDRAWALS AND THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE CLEARED THOUGH SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. BECAUSE N O CASH PAYMENT CAN BE MADE THOUGH CREDIT CARD AND THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY IN THIS REGARD. THE BAN K ACCOUNT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, HENCE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE BANK ACCOUNT. 2. THAT THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE TERMED AS N EW EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS DISCLOSED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN. HENCE, CIT(A) I S IN DATE OF HEARING 19/11/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19/11/2018 ITA NOS. 4476/D/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 SANJAY DEWAN 2 ERROR NOT CONSIDERING THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE A PPEAL PROCEEDING AS IT WAS NOT A NEW EVIDENCE. 3. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHT TO ADD, MODIFY OR DELET E ANY GROUND DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NO T DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE N OT REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. DURING THE HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE , HAS STATED THAT AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT CONSID ERING THE FACT THAT PAYMENT OF MUTUAL FUND WAS MADE OUT OF BA NK WITHDRAWALS AND THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE CLEARED T HROUGH SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO CASH PAYMENT CAN BE MADE THROUGH CREDIT CARD AND THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY IN THIS REGARD. THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS CLEAR LY MENTIONED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, HENCE, NO ADDITION CA N BE MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE TERMED AS NEW EVIDENCE, WHEN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) IS ERRED I N NOT CONSIDERING THE BANK ACCOUNT DURING THE APPEAL PROC EEDING AS IT WAS NOT A NEW EVIDENCE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS ALL THE EVIDENCES/ DOCUMENTS IN HIS P OSSESSION TO SUBSTANTIATE ITS CASE, IF THE BENCH HAS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE IN ITA NOS. 4476/D/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 SANJAY DEWAN 3 DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AF RESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 4. LD. DR DID NOT RAISE ANY OBJECTION TO THE REQUEST O F THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECOR DS. I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEES COUNS EL THAT AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FA CT THAT PAYMENT OF MUTUAL FUND WAS MADE OUT OF BANK WITHDR AWALS AND THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE CLEARED THROUGH SAVIN G BANK ACCOUNT, HOWEVER, NO CASH PAYMENT CAN BE MADE THROU GH CREDIT CARD AND THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY IN THIS REGARD. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, HENCE, NO A DDITION CAN BE MADE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE TERMED AS NEW EVIDEN CE, WHEN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSE E IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN, WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE SAME SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO AFRESH ALONGWI TH ALL OTHER EVIDENCES/ DOCUMENTS IN THE POSSESSION OF TH E ASSESSEE. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ISSUES I N DISPUTE ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR HEARING ON 31.1 2.2018 AT 10.000 AM WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME AF RESH UNDER THE LAW AND CONSIDER THE BANK STATEMENT AND OTHER ITA NOS. 4476/D/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 SANJAY DEWAN 4 DOCUMENTS, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS COUNSEL I S ALSO DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 31.12.2018 AT 10.00 AM AND FILE ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS/EVIDENCES, IF ANY, TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS C ASE AND FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS AND DID NOT TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT. SINCE THE ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED, THERE IS NO NEED TO SEND THE NOTIC E TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19.11.2018. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19/11/2018 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI ITA NOS. 4476/D/2018 A.Y. 2010-11 SANJAY DEWAN 5