Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow V. Shri Syed Hilal, Lucknow

ITA 717/LKW/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 71723714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 12-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; 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.717/LKW/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009 - 10 SHRI SYED HILAL, NAWAB HOUSE, MUSAHIBGANJ, THAKURGANJ, LUCKNOW. PAN:ABYPH7272E VS DY.C.I.T., RANGE - VI, LUCKNOW. (RESPONDENT) (APPELLANT) SHRI Y. P. SRIVASTAVA, D. R. APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY 01/04/2015 DATE OF HEARING 16 /04/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. THIS IS REVENUES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY LEARNED CIT(A) - II, LUCKNOW DATED 30/05/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.1,92,632/ - AGAINST RS.27,47,815/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ACCEPTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY DOCUMENTS TO SUBSTANTIATE CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 2. FURTHER, THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT(A) IS CONTRADICTORY. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), LUCKNOW HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT BY NOT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSING OFFICER TO FURNISH HIS REPORT ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BEFORE HIM AS REQUIRED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX, RULES, 1962. 3. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING IN SPITE OF NOTICE AND HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 2 4. LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF LEAR NED D.R. OF THE REVENUE, PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 144/147. WE ALSO FIND THAT CIT(A) HAS DEC IDED THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED BY LEARNED A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE HIM WITHOUT O BTAINING ANY REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEN NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT THE EVIDENCE FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WERE NEVER EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE SAME WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AND THEREFORE, CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE OBTAINED REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SINCE THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED BY CIT(A) WITHOUT OBTAINING REMAND REPORT, WE FEEL THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. HENCE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO HIS FILE FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER OBTAI NING REMAND REPORT FROM THE A.O. AND AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO BOTH THE SIDES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE 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. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 16 /04/2015 *C.L.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