Satpal Goyal, Panchkula V. DCIT, Patiala

ITA 745/CHANDI/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8235 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 04-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Condonation of delay
• Section: 153A; 132; 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, SMC, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 745/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SH. SATPAL GOYAL, VS. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, PANCHKULA PATIALA PAN NO. ADAPG9749F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. AMIT GOYAL RESPONDENT BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 07.03.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.03.2017 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-1, LUDHIANA DATED 15.5.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08 2. ACCORDING TO THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE APP EAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS TIME BARRED BY 17 DAYS. THE ASSESSEE FILED APPLICAT ION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE APPEAL. IT IS EXPLAINED THAT AFTER REC EIVING THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS SENT THE SAME TO THE C.A. SHRI SAN JAY GOYAL WHO HAS FORWARDED THE PAPERS TO SHRI DEEPAK AGRAWAL IN CHAN DIGARH FOR PREPARING OF THE APPEAL ON 2.8.2014 AS SHRI SANJAY GOYAL C.A. WAS BUSY IN THE YEAR ENDING CLOSING. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SUFFERING FROM VARIOUS DISEASES AND CHRONIC PATIENT OF BLOOD SUGAR AND HYPERTENSION AND WAS NOT KEEPING WELL 2 WITH HIS HEALTH, THEREFORE, HE WAS NOT ABLE TO CONT ACT SHRI DEEPAK AGRARWAL AT CHANDIGARH, AND THEREFORE, DUE TO THESE REASONS THERE WAS ONLY NOMINAL DELAY. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THAT THERE IS A NOMINAL DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT A SSESSEE HAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR EXPLAINING THE DELAY. THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, IS THEREFORE, CONDONED. 4. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PRO CEEDINGS AS WELL AS CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS. 6 LACS U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 5. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSIN G OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 6 LACS U/S 68 OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE S PREMISES WAS SEARCHED U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON 25.2.2009 AND THER EAFTER NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO SUCH NOTICE DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 4,83,170/-. DU RING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASS ESSEE TO FILE CONFIRMATION, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN AND OTHER SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE GE NUINENESS OF THE LOANS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE LOAN S RAISED FROM SHRI T.C. BANSAL OF RS. 3 LACS AND SHRI K.C. BANSAL OF RS. 3 LACS. THE ASSESSING 3 OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEES COUNSEL HAS SHOWN INA BILITY TO FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS O F LOANS OF RS. 6 LACS AS ABOVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY TREATED TH E LOAN OF RS. 6 LACS AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. 6. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) THAT TH E ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION IN CONNECTION WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS, SUPPORTED BY THE DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THAT PARTIES HAVE GIVEN GENU INE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT REQUISITE DETAILS A S WAS ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF THE LOANS RECEIVED FORM SHRI K.C. BANSAL AND SHRI T.C. BANSAL HAVE SUBSEQUENTLY BEEN OBTAINE D AND ARE BEING ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE EVIDENCE WOULD PROVE THAT AS SESSEE RECEIVED GENUINE LOANS AND PROVED CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CR EDITOR. THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, REQUESTED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAY B E ADMITTED. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES ARE FILED NOW, SENT THE SAME TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMM ENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REITERATED THE FACTS STATED IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE REQUISITE DOCUMENT S AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THEREFORE, ADDITION MAY BE SUSTAINED. THE LD . CIT(A) NOTED THAT ASSESSEE SEEK ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES BUT COULD NOT SATISFY THE FULFILLMENT OF CONDITION OF RULE 46A OF THE I.T . RULES AND ACCORDINGLY, DID NOT ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE PB- 67 WHICH IS A COPY OF A REPLY FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE 4 SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED THAT CONFIRMATION FROM SHRI T.C. BANSAL AND SHRI K.C. BANSAL ALONG WITH THEIR PAN NUMBERS HAVE BEEN FILED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO STATED IN THIS REPLY THAT THE DOCUMENTS LIKE I NCOME TAX RETURNS AND BANK STATEMENT WOULD BE FILED SUBSEQUENTLY. THE ASS ESSEE ALSO FILED COPY OF HIS BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRO VE THAT LOANS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO PAPER BOOK 48 AND 52 WHICH ARE THE COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF THE CREDITORS WHICH WERE FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT COPIES OF THE PAN NUMBER OF B OTH THE CREDITORS WERE ALSO FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND COPY OF THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF INCOME TAX RETURNS OF BOTH THE CREDITORS ARE FILED AT PAGES 45 AND 50 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A). HE H AS SUBMITTED THAT THESE EVIDENCES WILL PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE CRED ITOR, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION S. THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE REFUSED TO ADMIT THE ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCES. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DATED 10.2.2015 IN ITA NO. 744/CHD./2014 IN WHICH O N IDENTICAL FACTS, THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WERE NOT ADMITTED BY THE LD. CI T(A) WERE FOUND TO BE JUSTIFIED. 9. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE RE CORD REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE FILED REPLY (PB-67) BEFORE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE LOANS F ORM SHRI T.C. BANSAL AND SHRI K.C. BANSAL IN A SUM OF RS. 3 LACS EACH TO TALLING TO RS. 6 LACS. 5 THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REPLY HAS MENTIONED THAT CONFI RMATION FROM THE ABOVE SAID PERSONS ARE BEING ENCLOSED HEREWITH. HOWEVER, OTHER DOCUMENTS LIKE INCOME TAX RETURNS AND BANK STATEMENTS OF THESE PER SONS SHALL BE SUBMITTED SUBSEQUENTLY. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPY OF HIS BANK STATEMENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RECORD REVEALED THAT SHR I S.K. MITTAL LD. DR HAS FILED COPIES OF THE CONFIRMATIONS OF SHRI T.C. BANS AL AND SHRI K.C. BANSAL ON RECORD WITH THE NOTING THAT THESE DOCUEMNTS WERE FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS, THEREFORE, CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATIONS OF BOTH THE CREDITORS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT ASSES SMENT STGE. IN THESE CONFIRMATIONS, THE CREDITORS HAVE EXPLAINED AND CON FIRMED THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND ALSO MENTIONED THAT THEY ARE ASSESSED TO INCOME TAX AND HAVE DISCL OSED THEIR PAN NUMBERS. IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 I N ITA NO. 744/CHD/2014 DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL DATED 10.2.201 5 AS ARGUED BY THE LD. DR, IT WAS NOTED IN THE ORDER THAT ASSESSEE SOU GHT ADMISSION OF CONFIRMATION ISSUED BY SHRI K.C. BANSAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). NO REASONS WERE ALSO EXPLAINED, THEREFORE, IT WAS HELD THAT LD . CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN REFUSING TO ADMIT SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. FURTHER , COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI K.C. BANSAL WAS FILED WHICH DISCLO SED THAT THERE WAS A CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT PRIOR TO GIVING LO ANS TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE NOT ADMI TTED. HOWEVER, IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR, FACTS ARE ALL TOGETHER DIF FERENT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FILED CONFIRMATION OF BOTH THE CREDITORS B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISCLOSING THAT THE AMOUNT HAVE BEEN GIVEN AS LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AS WELL AS PAN NUMBER OF TH E CREDITORS HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED IN HIS REPLY BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER 6 THAT COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURN AND BANK STATEMEN T OF THOSE PERSONS WOULD BE FILED LATER ON. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THESE DOCUMENTS WERE WITH THE CREDITORS WHICH WERE OBTAINED SUBSEQUENTLY, THEREFORE, SAME WAS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), SA ME ARE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SE DOCUMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WITH THE REQUEST FOR ADMISS IONS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN THE CASES78 OF SHRI TEK RAM VS. CIT 26 2 CTR 118 (SC) AND CIT VS. MUKTA METAL WORKS [2011] 336 ITR 555 (P&H) ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WERE ADMITTED BEING RELEVANT AS WERE REQUI RED TO BE LOOKED INTO. SINCE THE COPIES OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS AND BANK STATEMENTS OF THE CREDITORS COULD NOT BE OBTAINED AT THE TIME OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND THESE ARE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND HAVE TO BE LOOKED INTO FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE ISSUE OF GENUINE CREDITORS AND THAT IN THE CASE OF ONE OF THE CREDITORS THERE IS NO CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCO UNT, THEREFORE, LD. CIT(A) INSTEAD OF REFUSING TO ADMIT THESE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCES, SHOULD HAVE ADMITTED THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FOR FINAL DISPOSAL OF THE MATTER. THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE DISTINGUISHABL E FROM THE FACTS CONSIDERED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION AND THE FACT THAT THE COPY OF THE INCOME TAX RETURN AND BANK STATEMENT OF THE CREDITOR WAS PRODUCED AS ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BEING RELEVANT TO THE MATTER, THESE SHO ULD HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE I SSUE ON MERITS. I, ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) A ND ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FOR THE PURPOSE OF DECIDING THE ISSUES ON MERITS. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY LD . CIT(A) FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE ON MERIT, THEREFORE, MATTER REQUIRES RECO NSIDERATION AT THE LEVEL OF 7 THE LD. CIT(A). I, ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE IMPUGN ED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO HIS FILE WITH A DI RECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE S SO ADMITTED BY ME. THE LD. CIT(A) SHALL GIVE REASONABLE SUFFICIENT OPP ORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND SHALL DECIDE THE APPEAL STRICTL Y ON MERITS. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 15 MARCH, 2017 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR