ANOOP DATTRAY NAIDU, MUMBAI V. DCIT, Jaipur

ITA 50/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2085 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJENDRA SINGH JCIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: ANIL BHANDARI
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; ] DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 50/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 ANOOP DATTRAY NAIDU, A-1503, TWINS TOWER, CHS, SECTORY-20, BEHIND JALVAYU VIHAR, KHAR GHAR, NAVI MUMBAI, MAHARASHTRA- 410210. CUKE VS. D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: ABTPN 1958 J VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ANIL BHANDARI (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH (JCIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 24/05/2017 MN?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/05/2017 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 14/10/2016 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-I, JAIPUR FOR T HE A.Y. 2010-11, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L EARNED CIT (APPEALS)-L, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS BY CONFORMING THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICE R U/S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961. THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT (APP EALS)-L, JAIPUR IS ITA 50/JP/2017_ ANOOP DATTRAY NAIDU VS DCIT 2 ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY, AND AGAINST THE FA CTS OF THE CASE AND AGAINST THE LAW. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS)-L, JAIPUR HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS IN FACTS BY CONFORMING THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER SO LELY ON THE BASIS OF 26AS INSTEAD OF FORM NO.16 .THE REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY WAS NOT GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT BEFORE CONFORMING THE ASSESS MENT MADE BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ACTION OF LEARNE D CIT (APPEALS)-L, JAIPUR IS ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY, AND AGAI NST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND AGAINST THE LAW. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS)-L, JAIPUR HAS ERRED BY MAKING ADDITIO N OF RS 492040 U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 FOR PAYMENT OF STAMP DUTY AND OTHER EXPENSES WITHOUT GIVING THE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT. THE ACTION OF LEARNED CIT (APPEALS)-L, JAIPUR IS IL LEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED, ARBITRARY AND AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE. RELIEF MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED BY DELETING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS 492040. 2. AT THE OUTSET OF HEARING, THE LD COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WHICH H E COULD NOT PRODUCE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW FOR THE REASON THAT THE BANK FROM WHERE THESE DOCUMENTS OBTAINED, DID NOT PROVIDE TO THE AS SESSEE IN TIME. AS THE ASSESSEE IS RESIDING IN THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AN D THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AT JAIPUR. THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE AS SESSEE ASKED VARIOUS INFORMATION BUT SINCE IT WAS AN OLD CASE AND THE ASS ESSEE WAS LOCATED AT DIFFERENT GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION IN INDIA. THE ASSESS EE REQUESTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PROVIDE SOME TIME TO OBTAIN NE CESSARY PAPERS/INFORMATION. DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE WAS SERVING ITA 50/JP/2017_ ANOOP DATTRAY NAIDU VS DCIT 3 TWO COMPANIES NAMELY LOOP TELECOM LIMITED AT NEW DEL HI AND ZTE TELECOM INDIA PVT. LTD. AT NAVI MUMBAI. LOOP TELECOM LIMITED WAS UNDER INVESTIGATION BY THE GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES AND THE RECORDS OF THE COMPANY WERE IN THE POSSESSION OF GOVERNMENT AUTHORI TIES. ZTE TELECOM INDIA PVT. LTD. WAS CONTROLLED BY THE PERSONNEL OF C HINA AND THE LOCAL PEOPLE COULD NOT PROVIDE NECESSARY INFORMATION WITHO UT THE PERMISSION OF THE PARENT COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ASSE SSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT NECESSARY PAPERS AND NOT COMPLIED THE DIRECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW OBTAINED NECESSARY INFORM ATION/DOCUMENTS, THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THAT FOR THE INTEREST OF JU STICE, THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. 3. ON THE CONTRARY, THE LD. DR WAS NOT HAVING ANY SE RIOUS OBJECTION TO THE PROPOSITION OF THE LD AR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE AND A FTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I ADMIT ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REMAND THE ISSUE TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE DECIDED DE NOVO. ITA 50/JP/2017_ ANOOP DATTRAY NAIDU VS DCIT 4 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/05/2017. SD/- HKKXPAN (BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 24 TH MAY, 2017 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- SHRI ANOOP DATTRAY NAIDU, NAVI MUMBAI , MAHARASHTRA. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- THE D.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 50/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR