Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-6(2)(1), Bangalore V. M/s Anjanadri Constructions , Bangalore

ITA 466/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4601 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-06-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 27-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B R RAMESH
• Assessee Lawyers: VIKRAM HUILGOAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 466 /BANG/201 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 2 - 1 3 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6(2)(1), BENGALURU. VS. M/S. ANJANADRI CONSTRUCTIONS, NO.21/A, 1 ST MAIN, 2 ND STAGE, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU 560 086. PAN : AA SFA 1613 K APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI. B. R. RAMESH , J CIT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI. VIKRAM HUILGOAL , ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING : 05 . 0 6 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 . 0 6 .201 8 O R D E R PER SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), INTERALIA , ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IS OPPOSED TO LAW AND THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO TO REBUT SUCH EVIDENCE, WHICH IS IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(3). 3. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IN SO FAR AS IT RELATES TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS MAY BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALTER, TO AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. ITA NO. 466/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 3 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED DR HAS CONTENDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE BEFORE THE AO AND THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1.52 CRORES BUT BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAIN CONFIRMATIONS WHICH WERE NOT CONFRONTED TO THE AO AND THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND DELETED THE ADDITIONS. 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CONTENDED THAT CIT(A) HAS EXAMINED THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BEFORE HIM, THEREFORE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CANNOT BE RECALLED. 4. HAVING CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT ON ACCOUNT OF NOT FURNISHING THE EVIDENCE, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1.52 CRORES BUT WHEN THE MATTER TRAVELLED TO THE CIT(A), ASSESSEE FILED THE EXPLANATIONS WITH EVIDENCES AND THE SAME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A) WITHOUT CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. THEREFORE, THERE IS A GROSS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE WITH A DIRECTION TO READJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER GETTING A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO ON THE NEW EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15 TH JUNE, 2018. SD/- SD/- BANGALORE. DATED: 15 TH JUNE, 2018. /NS/* (INTURI RAMA RAO) (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 466/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 3 COPY TO : 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT(A) - II BANGALORE 4 CIT 5 DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6 GUARD FILE BY ORDER SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, BANGALORE.