Kusum Lata Jain, Kanpur V. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 685/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 68523714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 12-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.685/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2004 05 KUSUM LATA JAIN, 54/1, NAYA GANJ, KANPUR 208001. PAN:ACFPJ6506K VS. ACIT CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SRI ASHISH JAISWAL, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY SHRI AMIT NIGAM, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 12/08/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 1 1 /09/2015 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) - I, KANPUR, DATED 03.06.2014 FOR A.Y. 2004 05. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED AS MANY AS SIX GROUNDS BUT THE ONLY GRIEVANCE IS REGARDING CONFIRMING OF ADDITION OF RS. 3.10 LACS MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT OF CASH IN BANK ACCOUNT. 3. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) IN PARA 4.2 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED CASH FLOW STATEMENTS FOR TH E PRESENT YEAR AND EARLIER YEAR ALSO BUT THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY SAYING THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PLACED BEFORE HIM. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NEVER ASKED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ENTRIES IN THE CASH FLOW STA TEMENT. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. SO 2 THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN BRING ON RECORD DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ENTRIES IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE WE FIND THAT IT IS VERY MUCH NOTED BY THE LEARNED CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED CASH BOOK AND CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND THE SAME WAS REJECTED BY HIM BY SAYING THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PLACED BEFORE HIM. WE ALSO FIND THAT THIS IS NOWHERE STATED BY THE CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO BRING ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF ENTRIES IN THE CA SH FLOW STATEMENT. HENCE, WE FEEL THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE PROVIDED ONE OPPORTUNITY TO BRING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF ENTRIES IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT (A) AND R ESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH DECISION AFTER EXAMINING THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHICH THE ASSESSEE MAY BRING ON RECORD IN SUPPORT OF ENTRIES IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. NEEDLESS TO SAY, HE SHALL PRO VIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS 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. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 1 1 /09/2015 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