The Kurukshetra Urban Cooperative Bank Ltd., Kurukshetra V. ITO, Kurukshetra

ITA 689/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6558 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 19-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: B M MONGA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 689 & 690/CHD/2017 A.Y.: 2012-13 & 2013-14 THE KURUKSHETRA URBAN COOPERATIVE VS. THE ITO, BANK LTD., RAILWAY ROAD, WARD-1, KURUKSHETRA. KURUKSHETRA. PAN NO. ACTPP6699R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : S/SHRI B.M.MONGA & ROHIT KAURA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.12.2017 ORDER BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A SSAILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 02.02.2017 OF LD. CIT (APPEAL S) KARNAL PERTAINING TO 2012-13 AND 2013-14 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS. FOR READY REFERENCE, GROUNDS FROM ITA 689/CHD/2017 ARE BEING REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING T HE ORDER OF AO DISALLOWING THE PROVISION OF LIABILITY OF LEAVE ENC ASHMENT WHICH WAS SCIENTIFICALLY BASED ON THE ACTUARIAL VALUATION BY ACTUARIES OF LIC OF INDIA, ACCOUNTING STANDARDS AND WELL SETTLED LAW. 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATIO N FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS CONTAINED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 1 WHEREIN THE ACTUARIAL VALUATION DONE BY THE ACTUARIES OF LIC OF INDIA IS PLACED AT PAGES 2 TO 7 , INSPECTION REPORTS/OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA IS PLACED AT PAGE 8 TO 32. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE EVIDENCES MAY BE ADMITTED AND THE ORDER BE PASS ED AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS. INVITING ATTENTION TO THE IMPUGNED REPORTS, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THEY ARE IDENTICAL FOR BOTH THE YEARS, IT WAS SUBMITTED, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTED BY DIFFERENT COUNSELS WHO, FOR REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THEM, DESPITE THE ASSESSEE RA ISING A SPECIFIC GROUND, FAILED TO FILE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM ON ACCOUNT OF WHI CH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DISMISSED FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE. IT WAS HIS LIMITED PRAYER THAT THE FRESH EVIDENCES MAY BE ADMITTED AS THESE ARE RELEVANT AND CRUCIAL FOR DECI DING THE APPEALS AND ON ACCOUNT OF THE LAPSES OF THE COUNSEL APPEARING BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS SUFFERED. ITA 689&690/CHD/2017 A.Y 2008-09 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. THE LD. SR.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELYING UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDERS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO FILE EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO OR THE CIT(A) AND AS A RESULT, THE ORDER IS EX-PARTE ORDER. HOWEVER, SINC E IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE LAPSES ON THE PART OF THE COUNSEL WHO APPEARED BEFORE THE TAX AUTHORITIES , HE STATED THAT HE WOULD HAVE NO OBJECTION IF THE FRESH EVIDENCES ARE ADMITTED. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT FOR CONSIDERING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE SAME, ISSUE MAY BE LEFT OPEN TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). 4. I HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I FIND THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE DESPITE PUTTING UP ITS CLAIM, DID NOT PLACE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES BEFORE THE CIT(A) OR FOR THAT MATTER, BEFORE THE AO. ACCORDINGLY, TAKING NOTE OF THE SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE REV ENUE, THE FRESH EVIDENCES ARE ADMITTED. ON THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EVIDENCE , THE ISSUE IS L EFT OPEN. IMPUGNED ORDERS, ACCORDINGLY, ARE SET ASIDE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW TAKING THE FRESH EVIDENCES INTO CONSIDERATION AND GRANTING THE ASSESSEE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. IT IS HOP ED THAT THE OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED IS NOT ABUSED BY THE ASSESSEE AS IN THE EVENTUALITY OF ABU SE OF THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(A) WOULD BE AT LIBERTY PASS A SPEAKING ORDER ON THE BASIS OF MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THUS, IT IS HOPED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS OWN INTEREST MAKES FULL AN D PROPER COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE SAID AUTHORITY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 15.12. 2017. SD/- (DIVA SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITAT/CHANDIGARH 1. DRAFT DICTATED 20.11.2017 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 11.12.2017 SR. PS 3. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 4. ORDER SIGNED AND PRONOUNCED ON 5 FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 6. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE AR 7. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK. 8. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER