Shri Kishore Kanjibhai Savaliya, Surat V. The Income tax Officer,Ward-6(2), Surat

ITA 581/AHD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 67698 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 30-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K C MATHEW
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 234B

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH AHMEDABAD (BEFORE SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, AM AND SHRI KUL B HARAT, JM) ITA NO.581/AHD/2013 A. Y.: 2009-10 KISHORE KANJIBHAI SAVALIYA 37, BALAJI BUNGLOWS, YOGI CHOWK, PUNAGAM ROAD, PUNAGAM, SURAT- 395010 P. A. NO. BGNPS0572D VS THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 6(2), SURAT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI M. K. PATEL, A.R. RESPONDENT BY SHRI K. C. MATHEW, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 30-09-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30-09-2013 O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT( A)-I, SURAT IN APPEAL NO.CAS-I/TFR/6.53/192/12-13 DATED 04-01-2013 , FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED T WO ELABORATE GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL AND THEY ARE REPRODUCED HERE IN BELOW FOR OUR CONSIDERATION: 1. ADDITION OF RS.19,00,781/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN ACCOUNT WITH ICICI BANK LTD.: (A) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS P ER RULE 46A(1) ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD PROVIDED ITA NO.581/AHD/2013 (AY 2009-10) KISHORE KANJIBHAI SAVALIYA VS ITO, W-6(2), SURAT 2 DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHI CH HE COULD NOT SUBMIT THE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. (B) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLA NT HAD SUBMITTED NOTARIZED AFFIDAVIT REGARDING THE CHAIN O F EVENTS AND PROVIDED SUFFICIENT GROUNDS FOR NOT BEIN G ABLE TO SUBMIT EVIDENCES DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) HAD HIMSELF CALLED FOR NOTARIZED AFFI DAVIT WHICH HE HAS NOWHERE MENTIONED IN HIS ORDER. (C) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLA NT HAD PROVIDED NAMES, ADDRESS ALONGWITH PAN OF THE 4 PERSONS TO WHOM THE MONEY BELONGED WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. (D) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE APPELLA NT HAD PROVIDED CONTRA ACCOUNT OF THE 4 PERSONS FROM THE BOOKS OF M/S. INDIA INFOLINE LTD. WHICH IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY. THE CONTRA ACCOUNTS CLEARLY SHOWE D THAT SHARES WERE PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE 4 PERSONS THE DETAILS OF WHOM WERE PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT DURING 1 ST APPEAL STAGE. THE PAYMENTS MADE FROM SAVINGS ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT WERE ALSO CREDITED BY M/S. INDIA INFOLINE LTD. IN THE ACCOUNT S OF THOSE 4 PERSONS. 2. MISCELLANEOUS: (A) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 234B OF THE I.T. ACT WHEN SUCH ADDITIONS WERE NOT WARRANTED AT THE TIME OF FILING OF RETURN. ITA NO.581/AHD/2013 (AY 2009-10) KISHORE KANJIBHAI SAVALIYA VS ITO, W-6(2), SURAT 3 (B) THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN NOT DELETING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH PENALTY WAS INVOKED WERE NOT WARRANTED FRO IN VIEW OF ADDITIONAL SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT. (C) THE APPELLANT CRAVES TO ADD, ALTER, DELETE OR A MEND ANY OTHER GROUND OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. 2. AT THE OUTSET, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED A PAPER BOOK C ONTAINING EIGHTEEN PAGES AND ARGUED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID N OT ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM AND HAD PA SSED THE ORDER WITHOUT TAKING NOTE OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRO DUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM. HE, THEREFORE, PLEADED BEFORE US THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE MAY B E ADMITTED AND THE CASE MAY BE SEND BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. A. O. IN ORDER TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER. LD. D.R. STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. A.R. 3. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES, WE ARE OF THE CONSI DERED VIEW THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE REVENUE OUGHT TO HA VE CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E ADJUDICATION. WE, THEREFORE, HEREBY REMIT THE CASE BACK TO THE FI LE OF LD. A.O. ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DIRECT THE LD. A.O. TO PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PE R LAW AND MERITS AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT MATERIALS SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.581/AHD/2013 (AY 2009-10) KISHORE KANJIBHAI SAVALIYA VS ITO, W-6(2), SURAT 4 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.09.2013 SD/- SD/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S. K. SINHA/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE CIT(A) CONCERNED 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD