Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax-6, Kanpur V. Shri Anal Pushkarna,

ITA 593/LKW/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4680 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 04-09-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJESH KUSHWAHA
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH B, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.593/LKW/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 SHRI ANAL PUSHKARNA, C/O RAJESH KUSHWAHA, AMBEDKAR MARKET, ORAI. PAN:BCSPP6023P VS DY.C.I.T.-4, KANPUR. (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI AMIT NIGAM, D. R. APPELLANT BY SHRI RAJESH KUSHWAHA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY 24/02/2016 DATE OF HEARING 03 /03 /2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A)-II, KANPUR DATED 15/06/2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11. 2. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS E RRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.39,27,300 /- MADE BY AO ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE HA D SOLD PROPERTY OF RS.39,27,300/- AS ASSESSEE FAILED TO FU RNISH ANY EVIDENCE OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN ALLOWING RELIEF OF RS.39,27,300 /- MADE BY AO ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE HA D SOLD PROPERTY OF RS.39,27,300/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS AND MERITS OF THE CASE AND ADJUDICATED THE SAME IN FAVO UR OF THE 2 ASSESSEE ONLY BELIEVING ON A COPY OF AGREEMENT WHIC H WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO WHICH IS CLEAR A VIOLATION OF RULE 46A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX RULES. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.94, 899/- BY DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF LOSS OCCURRED WITHOUT APPR ECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS WI TH RESPECT OF THE SAID CLAIM. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,3 0,000/- MADE BY THE AO U/S. 69A OF THE ACT BEING UNEXPLAINED MON EY CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WH ICH ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER ANY SUBSTANTIVE EXPLANATION. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERR ED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,0 0,000/- MADE BY THE AO DUE TO DISALLOWING OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80G, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNIS H ANY SUPPORTING SUCH EVIDENCES TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM . 6. THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), KANPUR BEING ERRONEOUS , UNJUST AND BAD IN LAW BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE AO B E RESTORED. 3. LEARNED D. R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREAS LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPO RTED THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT CIT(A) HAS ADMITTE D ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFF ICER IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 144/147 OF THE ACT IN WHICH IT IS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT AS PER AIR, DURING THE RELEV ANT ACCOUNTING PERIOD, THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD A PROPERTY WORTH RS.39,27,300/- B UT IN COURSE OF 3 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, NO DETAILS WITH REGARD TO P URCHASE/SALE WAS FILED AND ITS SOURCE OF ACQUISITION WAS NOT EXPLAINED. B EFORE CIT(A), LEARNED A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED THE COPY OF AGREEMENT DATED 30/11/2009 WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE FLAT IN QUES TION FROM SUNIL MANTRI REALTY LIMITED. HENCE, IT IS ADMITTED POSITION THA T THIS DOCUMENT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE CIT(A) FOR THE FIRST TIME AND NO RE MAND REPORT WAS OBTAINED BY CIT(A) FROM ASSESSING OFFICER AND UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FEEL IT PROPER THAT THE ENTIRE MATTER SHOULD GO BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A) FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER OBTAINING REMAND REPORT FROM ASSESSI NG OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE EN TIRE MATTER BACK TO HIS FILE FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER OBTAINING REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. AND ALSO AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BE ING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GAROD IA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED:03/03/2016 *SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1.THE APPELLANT 2.THE RESPONDENT. 3.CONCERNED CIT 4.THE CIT(A) 5.D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR