NAVEEN SHANKAR JOHRI, Ajmer V. ITO, Ajmer

ITA 595/JPR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5235 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 09-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA CIT DR DHK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR JH HKKXPUN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 595/JP/2015 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI NAVEEN SHANKAR JOHRI DESHWALI GALI, SARVESHWAR NAGAR LOHA KHAN, AJMER CUKE VS. THE ITO WARD- 2(1) AJMER LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO .: AHMPJ 4673 P VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY: SHRI NIKHLESH KATARIA, CA JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY :SHRI R.A. VERMA, ADDL CIT-. DR LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 02/08/2016 ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/08/2016 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BHAGCHAND, AM THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE LD. CIT(A), AJMER DATED 10-03-2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2010-11 RAISING THEREIN FOLLOWING GROUND:- THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 .00 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE. ITA NO. 595/JP/2015 SHRI NAVEEN SHANKAR JOHRI VS. ITO, WARD- 2 (1), AJM ER . 2 2.1 AT THE OUTSET OF THE HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH IS READ AS UNDER:- GROUND NO. 1.1. - THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN NOT ADM ITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED UNDER RULE 46A THOUGH THERE WAS A VERY REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT SUBMITTING THE S AME BEFORE THE LD. AO. 2.2 IT IS NOTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THIS ISSUE OF ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT PARA 3.0 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- 3.0 DURING APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED APP LICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES AND SUBMITTE D THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBMIT THE PARTITION DEED BEFORE THE AO, THEREFORE, A SEPARATE APPLICATION IS BEING MADE UND ER RULE 46A(1)(B) TO SUBMIT THE SAME BEFORE THE UNDERSIGNED , THE ASSESSEE ONLY MADE VERBAL STATEMENTS BEFORE THE AO THAT AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED IN THE YEAR 2004-05 FROM HIS F ATHER OUT OF HIS RETIREMENT MONEY AND FAMILY PARTITION. THE AO HAS M ENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE HA S BEEN FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS REQUIRED BY THE AO REG ARDING FAMILY PARTITION. IN FACT, NO REFERENCE TO ANY PARTITION D EED WAS MADE BEFORE AO. NO AS APPELLANTS CLAIM THAT IT WAS NOT A VAILABLE WITH DUE TO DISPUTE BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS WHICH IS WITH OUT ANY BASIS. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY REASON FOR NON-SUBMISS ION OF PARTITION DEED BEFORE THE AO, APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE IS NOT ADMITTED UNDER RULE 46A AND THE CASE IS DECIDED ON MERITS. 2.3 I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTED THAT THE PARTITION DEED WHICH IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FILE THE SAME BEFORE THE AO AS IT W AS NOT AVAILABLE WITH ITA NO. 595/JP/2015 SHRI NAVEEN SHANKAR JOHRI VS. ITO, WARD- 2 (1), AJM ER . 3 THE ASSESSEE AT THAT TIME ON ACCOUNT OF DISPUTES IN THE FAMILY. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, I ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RESTORE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN T HE ORIGINAL APPEAL GROUND REGARDING ADDITION OF RS. 3.00 LACS AS AN UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT, TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE IT AFRESH A FTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND BY PROVIDING REASONABLE OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 /08/201 6 SD/- HKKXPUN ( BHAGCHAND) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 02 /08/ 2016 *MISHRA VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- SHRI NAVEEN SHANKAR JOHRI, AJMER 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE ITO, WARD- 2 (1), AJMER 3. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY@ CIT(A). 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT, 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 595/JP/2015) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR