Jasbir Kaur, New Delhi V. ITO, Ward-45(1), New Delhi

ITA 5299/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0095 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S L ANURAGI
• Assessee Lawyers: DHRUV MALHOTRA
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 69C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH SMC : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 5299/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 JASBIR KAUR, VS. ITO, WARD 45(1), G-7, BOCK-WZ, RATTAN PARK, NEW DELHI BASAI DARAPUR, NEW DELHI 110 015 (PAN: APJPK1760P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. DHRUV MALHOTRA, CA REVENUE BY : SH. SL ANURAGI, SR. DR. ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R DATED 26.4.2018 OF THE LD. CIT(A)-15, NEW DELHI PERTAININ G TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1 THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONF IRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING AN ADD ITION OF RS.3,00,000 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE Q UA PURCHASE OF VOLKSWAGEN JETTA CAR UNDER THE PROVISIO NS OF SECTION 69C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) . 1.1. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MA KING THE AFORESAID ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT TH E SOURCE OF ABOVE MENTIONED EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,00,00 0/- VIZ., CONFIRMATION OF SALE OF AN OLD CAR BY ASSESSE E TO MR. 2 SATISH KUMAR, WAS DULY SUBMITTED DURING THE APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS. 1.2. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MA KING THE AFORESAID ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING AND ADM ITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE DURI NG THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RUL ES, FOR EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF ABOVE MENTIONED EXPEND ITURE OF RS.3,00,000. 1.3. THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MA KING THE AFORESAID ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT, T HE ABOVE MENTIONED EXPENDITURE OF RS.3,00,000 DOES NOT REMAIN TO BE UN-EXPLAINED QUA SOURCE THEREOF WARRAN TING ADDITION OF THE SAME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 69C OF THE ACT. 1.4 THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MA KING THE AFORESAID ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEE DURING T HE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT ACCEPTED BY ASSESSIN G OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 1.5 THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MA KING THE AFORESAID ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT NO COGENT REASONS WERE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR MAKING THE SAID ADDITION. 1.6 THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MA KING THE AFORESAID ADDITION WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT TH E BASIS OF MAKING THE SAID ADDITION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WAS FLIMSY AND BASELESS. 3 THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR VARY FROM THE AFORESAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT OR BEFORE T HE TIME OF HEARING. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEAT ED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE STATED THAT IT IS A CASE WHERE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADMITTED THE CRUCIAL EVIDENCES I.E. CONFIRMATION OF SALE OF AN OLD CAR B Y ASSESSEE TO MR. SATISH KUMAR, IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 46A AND OMI TTING TO ADJUDICATE ON THE CONTENTION AND CLAIM OF THE ASSES SEE WHICH WERE FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH ARE VERY ESSENTIAL IN CONSIDERING THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE AND THEREFORE, H E REQUESTED THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADMITTED AND ISSUES IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION, AFTER GIVING ADEQUAT E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY REJECT ED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/R 46A. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE R ECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, C OPY OF ADDITIONAL DOCUMENT FILED U/R 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, A FTER CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF THE DOCUMENTS, I FIND CONSIDERABLE COGENCY IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TH AT LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED U/R 46A. I 4 FURTHER NOTE THAT NOW THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED TH E COPIES OF THOSE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE SHAPE OF APPLICATIO N U/R 46A, WHICH ARE VERY MUCH RELEVANT AND ESSENTIAL IN ADJUDICATIN G THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE. HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I ADMI T THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AN D SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTIONS TO DECIDE THE SAME, AFRESH, AS PER LAW, AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND PASS A SPEAKING ORD ER. 6. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 01-04-2019. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED :01-04-2019 SR BHATANGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.