Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bangalore V. Smt.Marathukalam Meena Mathew Maratt Estate, Bangalore

ITA 461/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7658 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K BIJU JT BENGALURU
• Assessee Lawyers: PREETHI PATEL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 54F; 54

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.461/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 4(1)(2), BENGALURU. VS. SMT. MARATHUKALAM MEENA MATHEW, MARATT ESTATE, 6 TH MILE, J.P. NAGAR, BANNERGHATTA ROAD, BENGALURU 560 076. PAN: ADBPM 6700F APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.K. BIJU, JT. CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU RESPONDENT BY : MS. PREETHI PATEL, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 21.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2017 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(APPEALS) INTER ALIA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT CA), IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, IS OPPOSED TO LAW A ND THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. ON FACTS OF THE CASE, LD. CIT CA) SHOULD HAVE G IVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE EVIDENCES SUBMI TTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ALLOW ING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S 54 F OF THE ACT. ITA NO.461/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 4 3. ON FACTS OF THE CASE, LD. CIT CA) SHOULD HAVE R EMANDED THE ISSUE BACK TO THE AO WITH A SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO VERIFY THE SUBMISSIONS AFRESH. 4. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED A T THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS MAY BE REVERSED AND TH AT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND/OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED. 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. DR HAS IN VITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT BEFORE THE AO, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT F ILED THE COPY OF PURCHASE DEED AND IN THE ABSENCE OF PURCHASE DEED, THE CLAIM RAISED U/S. 54F OF THE ACT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE AO. 3. BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COPY OF PURCHASE DEED, WHICH WAS THOROUGHLY EXAMINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) AND BEING CONVINCED WITH IT, HE ALLOWED DEDUCTION U/S 5 4F OF THE ACT. THE LD. DR, HOWEVER, SUBMITTED THAT WHILE ALLOWING DEDUCTIO N U/S. 54F OF THE ACT, THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS NOT CONFRONTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM TO THE AO, THEREFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) HAS ADJUD ICATED THE ISSUE WITHOUT CALLING FOR ANY COMMENTS FROM THE AO. THUS , THERE IS A VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. THE LD. DR FUR THER CONTENDED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BAC K TO THE CIT(APPEALS) TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER CONFRONTING THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE TO THE AO, ITA NO.461/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 4 AS THE APPEAL WAS DISPOSED OF IN GROSS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME- TAX RULES. 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF LOWER AU THORITIES IN THE LIGHT OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT UNDISPUTEDLY TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED COPY OF PURCHASE DEED BEFORE THE AO, THOUGH IT WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). BUT THE CIT(APPEALS) DID NOT CALL FO R ANY COMMENTS FROM THE AO. THUS, THERE IS VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES, ACCORDING TO WHICH BEFORE ADMITTING ANY ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE, THE CIT(APPEALS) IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO CONFRONT THE EV IDENCE TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS. THUS, IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE CIT(APPEALS) FOR READJ UDICATION OF THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF PURCHASE DEED, AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( JASON P. BOAZ ) ( SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST AUGUST, 2017. / D ESAI S MURTHY / ITA NO.461/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 4 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, BANGALORE.