SHRI HERO GYANCHANDANI, Bhopal V. The ACIT 3(1), Bhopal

ITA 487/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 48722714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 02-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: JATIN SEHGAL
• Keywords: Business income; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE (SINGLE MEMBER CASE) BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A.NO. 487/IND/2014 A.Y. : 2007-08 HERO GYANCHANDANI, ACIT, 3(1), BHOPAL VS. BHOPAL. APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. ABOPG0133D A PPELLANT S BY : SHRI SUMIT NEMA AND SHRI JATIN SEHGAL, ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R. A. VERMA, DR O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, BHOPAL, DATED 22.05.2014 FOR THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2007-08. DATE OF HEARING : 15 .12. 2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 . 1 2 .2015 HERO GYANCHANDANI, BHOPAL VS. ACIT, 3(1),BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 487/IND/2014 A.Y.2007-08. 2 2 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S A RETIRED EMPLOYEE OF SBI. THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS F ILED ON 31.10.2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 5,58,100/-. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVES PENSION FROM SBI AND ALSO DECLARE BUSINESS INCOME FROM PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERNS, NAMELY, M/S. MOON LIG HT CELEBRATION, BAIRAGARH, BHOPAL ( A MARRIAGE GARDEN ) AND M/S. PRADESH TIMES (PUBLICATION OF NEWSPAPER). THE ASSES SEE IS MAINTAINING SEPARATE ACCOUNTS FOR THESE TWO BUSINES S CONCERNS. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOANS FROM THREE PARTIES, NAMELY, PRAKASH ASNANI RS.3 LAKHS, MANISH WADHWANI RS. 2 LAKHS AND PROMP T MANPOWER CONSULTANCY AT RS. 2.33 LAKHS. THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF PROOF OF TR ANSACTION, CONFIRMATION LETTERS, COPY OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNTS E TC.. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS DISALLOWED THE SAME. 3. THE MATTER CARRIED TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE LD. C IT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ACCEPTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE , WHICH WAS HERO GYANCHANDANI, BHOPAL VS. ACIT, 3(1),BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 487/IND/2014 A.Y.2007-08. 3 3 FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THE GROUND THAT APPLICAT ION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES WAS NOT FILED BEFO RE THE CIT(A) FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. I AM O F THE VIEW THAT THIS IS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND PARTICULARLY THE LD. COUNSEL DID NO T FILE THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A. I FIND THAT THIS IS A M ISTAKE OF THE COUNSEL AND FOR THE COUNSELS MISTAKE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT SUFFER. ALL THESE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES GO TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REASONABLE EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF THIS LOAN. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAI R PLAY, I ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND RESTORE BACK THIS MATTE R TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY AND DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARI NG. THE ASSESSEE SHALL REMAIN PRESENT BEFORE THE CIT(A) WIT HIN 2 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ORDER. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. HERO GYANCHANDANI, BHOPAL VS. ACIT, 3(1),BHOPAL I.T.A.NO. 487/IND/2014 A.Y.2007-08. 4 4 THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 30 TH DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH DECEMBER, 2015. CPU* 1612