Vijay Kumar Arora, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 4934/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4771 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 07-08-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 17-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAMEER SHARMA
• Assessee Lawyers: N K KARHAIL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH H NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ITA NO. 4934/DEL/2012 ASSTT. YR: 2008-09 VIJAY KUMAR ARORA VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, L-90, LAJPAT NAGAR-II, WARD-32(3), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI-110024. PAN: AAJPA 1367 R ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : SHRI N.K. KARHAIL ADV. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMEER SHARMA SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST CIT(A)S ORDER D ATED 2-07- 2012 RELATING TO A.Y. 2008-09. VARIOUS GROUNDS ARE RAISED, WHICH IN EFFECT RAISE FOLLOWING ISSUES: (I) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE; AND (II) DISALLOWANCE OF BUSINESS EXPENDITURE. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT ASSES SEES ASSESSMENT IN QUESTION WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) MAKING VARIOUS ADDIT IONS ALLEGING THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE NECESSARY EVIDENCE IGNORING THE FACT THAT SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE APPEAL ED BEFORE CIT(A) AND APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WA S MADE. THE APPLICATION WAS FORWARDED BY CIT(A) TO ASSESSING OFFICER AND RE MAND REPORT WAS CALLED 2 THEREON. DESPITE CARRYING OUT THIS LENGTHY EXERCISE AND DETAILED EXPLANATION ON ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, CIT(A) ARBITRA RILY HELD THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH STATUTORY NOTICES AND REQUIREME NT OF FILING THE DETAILS OF EVIDENCE DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES, THEREFOR E, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS REJECTED TO BE ADMITTED AND ADDITIONS WERE CONF IRMED. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 2.1. LD. COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT A DETAILED APPLICATI ON WAS MADE BEFORE THE CIT(A) CITING VALID REASONS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS U NDERGOING A ROUGH PATCH IN HIS FAMILY PROBLEMS RELATING TO THE DIVORCE OF H IS DAUGHTER AND DUE TO THESE DISTURBANCES COULD NOT FILE THE EVIDENCE REQU IRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TIME. THESE REASONS ARE SUFFICIENT TO C ONSTITUTE A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT BEING ABLE TO FILE THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS. T HE CIT(A) AFTER HAVING CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUST ICE OUGHT TO HAVE ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DECIDED THE ISSUES AFTE R CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE. IGNORING REMAND REPORT AND REJOINDER THER EON AND WITHOUT PROPERLY REFERRING TO ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THE SAME HAS BEEN SUMMARILY REJECTED AND THE ASSESSEES CASE HAS BEEN SHUT OUT AT THE FIRST APPELLATE STAGE ITSELF, WHICH LEADS TO MANIFEST INJUSTICE. IT IS PLEADED THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WILL BE MET IF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ADMITTED AND LOWER AUTHO RITIES RARE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE MATTER AFRESH. 3. LD. DR IS HEARD, WHO SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT( A). 3 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE RECORD IT EMERGES THA T THE ASSESSEE FILED A DETAILED APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE CITING PROPER REASONS, ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS CASE LAWS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, CIT(A) HAVING CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT AND ASSESS EES REJOINDER THEREON OUGHT TO HAVE ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A DETAILED APPLICATION FOR ADMIS SION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CITING VARIOUS CASE LAW, WHICH, IN OUR CONSIDERED O PINION, DESERVED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO BE ADMITTED. IN VIEW THEREOF , WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND SET ASIDE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT AFRESH AFTER GIVIN G THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07-08-2013. SD/- SD/- ( B.C. MEENA ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 7 TH AUGUST 2013. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 4