Shri Anandilal Solanki, Indore V. The Income Tax Officer wd-3(3), Indore

ITA 557/IND/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 54004 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-11-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 30-08-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ARUN DEWAN
• Assessee Lawyers: H P VERMA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.557/IND/2010 A.Y. 2008-09 ANANDILAL SOLANKI, INDORE PAN AFEPL 6997 A ... APPELLANT VS ITO-WARD-3, INDORE ... RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI H.P. VERMA & SHRI ASHISH GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ARUN DEWAN DATE OF HEARING : 3.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.11.2011 O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 3.6.2010 OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX-I, INDORE MAINLY ON THE GROUND THAT ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ERRED 2 IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.9,80,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS OF CASH U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. DURING HEARING OF THIS APPEAL, WE HAVE HEARD SHR I H.P. VERMA ALONG WITH SHRI ASHISH GOYAL, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI ARUN DEWAN, LEARNED SR. DR. AT TH E OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT TRUE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN APPRECIATED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND THE APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY COULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED, THEREFORE, THERE IS DENIAL OF NATUR AL JUSTICE OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. PLEA WAS ALSO RAISED T HAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY AN AGRICULTURIST AND THE SUM DEPOS ITED IN THE BANK WAS OUT OF SALE CONSIDERATION OF SALE OF AGRIC ULTURAL LAND AND THERE IS NO OTHER INCOME. HOWEVER, THE LD. SR. DR DEFENDED THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON FILE. IF THE TOTALITY OF FACTS ASSERTED BY THE LD. RESPECTIVE COUNSEL AND THE CONCLUSION DRAWN IN THE 3 IMPUGNED ORDER ARE ANALYSED, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED OPINION THAT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTUM OF FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE HAS BEE N MENTIONED IN PARA 1.07 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER ALSO. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND ALSO NO P REJUDICE BE CAUSED TO EITHER SIDE, THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS SENT TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISS UE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASS ESSEE WITH FURTHER LIBERTY TO FURNISH EVIDENCE, IF ANY, TO SUB STANTIATE ITS CLAIM. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN IN THE PRESENCE O F LEARNED REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH THE SIDES AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD SD (R.C.SHARMA) (JOGINDER SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4.11.2011 COPY TO: APPELLANT, RESPONDENT, CIT, CIT(A), DR, GU ARD FILE