MAHINDER SINGH SIDHU, Jaipur V. JCIT, Jaipur

ITA 510/JPR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2065 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DHK
• Assessee Lawyers: PRENA SHARMA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Fair market value

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH DQY HKKJR] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS [KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YAD AV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 510/JP/2016 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12. SHRI MAHINDER SINGH SIDHU, B-30, HANUMAN NAGAR, VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. AFEPS 8981 F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : MISS PRENA SHARMA (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI R.A. VERMA (ADDL. CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 31.08.2017. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05/09/2017. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER SHRI KUL BHARAT, JM. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS FILED AGAINST THE O RDER OF LD. CIT (A)-I, JAIPUR DATED 17.03.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 -12. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CES FURNISHED BY APPELLANT U/R 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES THOUGH THE SA ME GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THE APPELLANT HAS PROPERLY D EMONSTRATED THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FURNISHING THE SAME BEFORE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHO IN R EMAND PROCEEDINGS HAS DULY VERIFIED THE SAME. THUS THE A DDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED DESERVE TO BE ACCEPTED. 2 ITA NO. 510/JP/2016. SHRI MAHINDER SINGH SIDHU, JAIPUR. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 91, 12,200/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAIN ED CASH DEPOSITS. APPELLANT PRAYS SAID ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED . 2.1 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WERE ACTUALLY SALE PROCEEDS OF LAND AND SHOPS DEVELOPED BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, M/S DALSINGH NAGAR AWASIYA YOJNA, IN WHICH AP PELLANT IS PARTNER AND WERE DULY RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, TH US NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT FOR SUCH AMOUNTS. 2.2 THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOTHING THAT WORK IN PROGRESS OF RS. 83,58,185/- APPEARING IN TRADING & PROFIT & LOSS A/ WAS NOT REPORTED IN TAX AUDIT REPORT, WITHOUT OBSERVING THE FACT THAT, UNDER SAID CLAUSE OF AUDIT REPORT I.E CLAUSE 28(D), QUANTITATIVE DETAILS OF GOODS TRADES ARE REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED, WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF AP PELLANT, FLATS WERE UNDER CONSTRUCTION I.E. WORK IN PROGRESS HENCE CLOS ING STOCK IS SHOWN AT NIL, THUS SUCH OBSERVATIONS SHOULD BE IGNORED AN D EXCLUDED. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 3,41,397/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER BY TREATING TH E SAME AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY. APPELLANT PRAYS SAID ADDITION M AY PLEASE BE DELETED. 4. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE ADDITION OF RS. 4,34,809/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER THE HEAD CAPITAL GAINS BY ADOPTING REDUCED FAIR MARKET VALUE (AS ON 01.04.198 1). APPELLANT PRAYS SAID ADDITION MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES THE RIGHT TO ADD, DELE TE, AMEND OR ABANDON ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT TH E TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL. 2. APROPOS TO GROUND NO. 1 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT, BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES THAT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THE APPELLANT HAS PROPERLY D EMONSTRATED THE REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FURNISHING THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. 3. LD. D/R OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS. 3 ITA NO. 510/JP/2016. SHRI MAHINDER SINGH SIDHU, JAIPUR. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE COURT OF HEARING WITH DUE REGARD TO THE APPLICATION DATED 19/2/2015 ENCLOSED PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 11 TO 12 WHEREIN APPLICATION FOR ADMI TTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS MADE. 4.1 AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACT AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW IN THE INTER EST OF PRINCIPLE OF NATURE JUSTICE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCES. THEREFORE, WE HEREBY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17/3/2016 AND RE STORE THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AS FILED BY THE ASSEESSE. LD. CIT(A) WOU LD SEEK REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SO FI LED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON TUESDAY, THE 05 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2017. SD/- SD/- FOE FLAG ;KNO ( DQY HKKJR ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL BHARAT ) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 05/09/2017. POOJA/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SHRI MAHINDER SINGH SIDHU, JAIPU R. 2. THE RESPONDENT- JT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE-3, JAIPUR. 3. THE CIT(A). 4 ITA NO. 510/JP/2016. SHRI MAHINDER SINGH SIDHU, JAIPUR. 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 510/JP/2016) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR