Rajesh Kumar, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 4777/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69611 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 04-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 07-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIDHI SRIVASTAVA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4777/DEL/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4777/DEL/2010 A.Y. : 200 8 - 0 9 RAJESH KUMAR, 132, SADAR BAZAR, DELHI 110 006 (PAN: AGEPK0687R) VS. ACIT, CIRCLE 39(1), NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RANJAN CHOPRA, CA DEPARTMENT BY : MS. NIDHI SRIVASTAVA, D.R. ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM PER SHAMIM YAHYA: AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS-XXVIII) , NEW DELHI DATED 30.7.2012 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED READ AS UNDER:- (I) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING LD. ACITS ACTION OF IMPOSIN G PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,97,07 1/- (II) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE EXISTED NO REASONABLE CAUSE THEREBY HAS CONFIRMED PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) LEVIED BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1,97,071/-. ITA NO. 4777/DEL/2012 2 (III) THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ARE AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. (IV) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO ALT ER, TO WITHDRAW, TO AMEND ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 3. IN THIS CASE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF R S.7,10,790/- FOR THE INTEREST PAID ON HOUSE PROPERTY U/S. 24(B) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVIDE THE DETAILS O F INTEREST PAID FROM HOUSE PROPERTY. ASSESSEE PROVIDED THE DETAIL S OF INTEREST PAID AS UNDER:- NAME NAME NAME NAME AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT AMOUNT RAJESH KUMAR, HUF RS. 85,000/- SAKSHI BENEFICIAL TRUST RS. 23,000/- KARAN GUPTA BENEFICIAL TRUST RS. 23,000/- AMIT KUMAR RS. 60,000/- HDFC BANK RS. 5,19,790/- 3.1 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD PROVIDE THE INTERES T CERTIFICATE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO SUM OF RS. 1,31,000/- AS UNDE R:- NAME NAME NAME NAME AMOUN AMOUN AMOUN AMOUNT TT T SAKSHI BENEFICIARY TRUST RS. 23,000/- KARAN GUPTA BENEFICIARY TRUST RS. 23,000/- RAJESH KUMAR, HUF RS. 85,000/- TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL TOTAL = == = RS. 1,31,000/ RS. 1,31,000/ RS. 1,31,000/ RS. 1,31,000/- -- - ITA NO. 4777/DEL/2012 3 3.2 LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS. 7,10,790/-, BUT COULD SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF RS. 1,31,000/- ONLY WITH INTEREST CERTIFICATES. THEREF ORE, EXCESS DEDUCTION CLAIMED OF RS. 5,79,790/- WAS DISALLOWED. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON THIS AMOUNT WAS ALSO INITIATED AND P ENALTY OF RS. 1,97,071/- WAS IMPOSED. 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ASSESSEE SUBMITTED NEW / A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT. HE H ELD THAT THE SAME WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF O RIGINAL PROCEEDINGS, THEREFORE, THEY CANNOT TAKEN AT THIS S TAGE. ACCORDINGLY, LD. CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO. 5. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED TO SUBSTANTIATE IT S CLAIM REGARDING THE INTEREST PAID ON HOUSE PROPERTY WITH REFERENCE TO CERTAIN NEW / ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROC EEDINGS IN THE PENALTY APPEAL. LD. CIT(A) HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT T HE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED IN THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE FIND THAT IF THE NEW DOCUMENTS PROVIDE THE BONAFIDE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME SHOULD BE DULY E XAMINED AND ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE VISITED WITH THE RIGORS OF PENALTY. HENCE, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO. AS SESSING OFFICER SHALL EXAMINE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WHICH THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONSIDER THE ISSUE AFRES H. NEEDLESS TO ITA NO. 4777/DEL/2012 4 ADD THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22/11/2013. SD/- SD/- [ [[ [R.P. TOLANI R.P. TOLANI R.P. TOLANI R.P. TOLANI] ]] ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE 22/11/2013 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES ITA NO. 4777/DEL/2012 5