Smt. Mahanta R. Yadav, Ahmednagar V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 51/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1833 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 13-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-01-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HITENDRA NINAWE
• Assessee Lawyers: V L JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Additional evidence
• Section: 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E , , !'#'' $ , % & BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM / ITA NO. 51/PN/2015 %' ( ')( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SMT. MAHANTA R. YADAV, K.V. ROAD, WARD NO. 2, TAL.-SHRIRAMPUR, DISTT.-AHMEDNAGAR PAN : AABPY5655J ....... / APPELLANT ' / V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, AHMEDNAGAR / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V.L. JAIN REVENUE BY : SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE / DATE OF HEARING : 13-04-2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18-05-2016 * / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THE APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-IT/TP, PUNE DATED 11 -11-2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS AS SAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CO NFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 5,63,168/- U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 ITA NO. 51/PN/2015, A.Y. 2009-10 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT S CONFIRMING ADDITIONS OF ` 4,65,187/- U/S. 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3. SHRI V.L. JAIN APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF ` 5,63,168/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) AND ` 4,65,187/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AFTER SEEKING LOA NS FROM THE RELATIVES. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILS OF THE SAME BEFOR E THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SIMILAR DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HOWEVER, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME EVEN AFTER SEEKING REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING O FFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT ADMITTED THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSE E BUT OPPOSED THE FILING OF SAME ON THE GROUND OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED B EFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE HAD FILE D ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERT Y AS WELL AS SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK. HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE NOT APPRECIATED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI HITENDRA NINAWE REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE AU THORITIES BELOW AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT 3 ITA NO. 51/PN/2015, A.Y. 2009-10 PROPERLY PURSUED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAS NOT FILED NECESSARY DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD MADE THE ADDITION U/S. 68 AND 69 OF THE ACT. IN FIRST APPEAL THE ASSESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. THE COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SOUGHT REMAND REPORT ON THE SAME FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A COPY OF DOCUMEN TS FURNISHED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AN D THE COPY OF REMAND REPORT IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK BEFORE T HE TRIBUNAL. DESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE BROUGHT ON R ECORD AND THE OPPORTUNITY WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAM INE THE SAME, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE MATERIAL BEFORE HIM. 6. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THE CASE NEEDS A REVISIT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHALL PASS FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE DOCUM ENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE IMPUGNED ORDER IS SET ASIDE AND T HE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 18 TH DAY OF MAY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( . . / R.K. PANDA) ( ! ' / VIKAS AWASTHY) #' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $ % #' / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; &# / DATED : 18 TH MAY, 2016 RK 4 ITA NO. 51/PN/2015, A.Y. 2009-10 *+,%-.#/#)- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' () / THE CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE 4. ' / THE CIT-I, PUNE 5. !*+ %%,- , ,- , . ./0 , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. + 1 23 / GUARD FILE. // ! % // TRUE COPY// #4 / BY ORDER, %5 ,0 / PRIVATE SECRETARY, ,- , / ITAT, PUNE