ANIL NANATTY CHANDRAN, MUMBAI V. ITO 2(1)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 6905/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8919 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Liquidation
• Section: 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "A" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, VICE PRESIDENT SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 6905/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11) Shri Anil Nanatty Chandran, 114A, Brookhaven, JVLR, Jogeshwari (East),Mumbai - 400060 [PAN: AAEPN1465G] Income Tax Officer-2(1)(1), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, Mumbai ................ Vs ................. Appellant Respondent Appearances For the Appellant/ Assessee For the Respondent/Department : : Ms. Dinkle Hariya Shri Mehul Jain Date of conclusion of hearing Date of pronouncement of order : : 10.03.2022 09.06.2022 O R D E R Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member: 1. By way of the present appeal the Appellant/Assessee has challenged the order, dated 07.08.2014, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Mumbai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] in appeal [CIT(A)-4/IT-85/ITO.2(1)(1)/2012-13,] for the Assessment Year 2010-11, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeals filed by the Appellant against the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act. ITA No. 6905/Mum/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 2 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Appellant, a resident individual, was employed as a full-time Director of Delta Telecom India Pvt. Ltd. during the relevant previous year. The Appellant filed return of income on 04.08.2010 disclosing income of INR 22,99,567/- under the head ‘Income from Salary’, ‘Nil’ income under the head Income from House Property and income of INR 10,88,450/- as net agricultural income. The case of the Appellant was selected for scrutiny and the Assessing Officer completed assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act after making (i) disallowance of interest of INR 1,50,000/- claimed by the Appellant under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act, (ii) the addition/disallowances of agriculture income amounting to INR 10,88,450/-, (iii) disallowance under Section 68 of the Act amounting to INR.26,36,762/- and INR.95,02,525/- in respect of credit entries in accounts with PNB and Dombivali Nari Sahkari Bank (DNSB), respectively, and (iv) addition pertaining to credit card expenses of INR 20,76,190/-. 3. In appeal, the CIT(A) confirmed (a) addition on account of disallowance of interest of INR 1,50,000/- under Section 24(1)(vi) of the Act, (b) disallowance of agriculture income amounting of INR 6,88,450/-, and (c) disallowance amounting to INR 3,10,095/- and INR 91,02,525/- in respect of credit entries in PNB and Dombivali Nari Sahkari Bank (DNSB) account. 4. Being aggrieved, the Appellant has preferred the present appeal against the order dated 07.08.2014 passed by CIT(A). ITA No. 6905/Mum/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 3 5. When the matter was taken up for hearing the Ld. Departmental Representative pointed out that the Paper-Book- II filed by the Appellant contains additional evidence. In response to query from the Bench the Ld. Authorised Representative for the Appellant submitted that though the documents have been placed in the Paper-Book-II, the facts that the documents are in the nature of additional evidence has been disclosed in notes below the index of the said paper- book. Further, an application for admission for additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 has also been filed by the Appellant on 07.03.2022. The Appellant could not file the documents before CIT(A) as the Appellant was embroiled in litigation as director of the Company facing liquidation and was also having medical issues. She further submitted that the Appellant had been making sincere efforts to identify additional evidence and for the same, the Appellant had sought permission to inspect records from the CIT(A) on multiple occasion. In this regard, she referred to letters dated 25.05.2018, 30.08.2018 and 30.04.2019 written to the CIT(A) by the authorised representative of the Appellant for seeking inspection of records. She prayed that the additional evidence be admitted and the appeal heard on merits. Responding to the aforesaid, the Ld. Departmental Representative submitted that primarily the additional evidence filed by the Appellant are in the form of confirmation and affidavits given by different parties to support the claim of the Appellant in relation credits of INR 3,10,095/- and INR 91,02,525/- in PNB and Dombivali Nari Sahkari Bank which were neither before the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) and have been filed for the first time before the Tribunal. The ITA No. 6905/Mum/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 4 Ld. Departmental Representative, therefore, submitted the additional evidence filed by the Appellant required verification/examination. 6. We have considered the rival submissions recorded hereinabove. In our view the additional evidence filed by the Appellant goes to the root of the matter and merits consideration. However, we also find merit in the contention of the Ld. Departmental Representative that the Revenue should get an opportunity to verify/examine the additional evidence since neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) had the opportunity to verify/examine the same. Accordingly, we deem it appropriate in the interest of justice to remand all the issues raised in the present appeal back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after taking into account the additional evidence filed by the Appellant before the Tribunal. The CIT(A) may, if deemed appropriate, call for remand report from the Assessing Officer. Since the matter is being remanded back all issues/contentions are left open. 7. In the result, appeal filed by the Appellant is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 09.06.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Pramod Kumar) Vice President (Rahul Chaudhary) Judicial Member म ुंबई Mumbai; दिन ुंक Dated : 09.06.2022 Alindra, PS ITA No. 6905/Mum/2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 5 आदेश की प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपील र्थी / The Appellant 2. प्रत्यर्थी / The Respondent. 3. आयकर आय क्त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 4. आयकर आय क्त / CIT 5. दिभ गीय प्रदिदनदि, आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, म ुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. ग र्ड फ ईल / Guard file. आिेश न स र/ BY ORDER, सत्य दपि प्रदि //True Copy// उप/सह यक पुंजीक र /(Dy./Asstt. Registrar) आयकर अपीलीय अदिकरण, म ुंबई / ITAT, Mumbai