Smt. Usha, Ghaziabad V. ITO, Ghaziabad

ITA 900/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6421 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 26-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 22-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K JAIN
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-2 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.900/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 USHA, VILLAGE BISHKOR, MODINAGAR, GHAZIABAD. PAN: ACQPU3998M VS. ITO, WARD 1(4), GHAZIABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SOMIL AGGARWAL, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K. JAIN, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.12.2016 ORDER PER RAJPAL YADAV, JM: THE PRESENT APPEAL IS DIRECTED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 30 TH DECEMBER, 2015 PASSED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKE N BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.900/DEL/2016 2 ARE NOT IN CONSONANCE WITH RULE 8 OF ITAT RULES. S HE HAS TAKEN 11 GROUNDS OF APPEAL, BUT, HER GRIEVANCE REVOLVES AROU ND ONE ISSUE, NAMELY, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND, THEREBY, CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,93,000/-. 2. WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVES, I HA VE GONE THROUGH THE RECORD CAREFULLY. IT EMERGES OUT FROM THE RECORD T HAT THE AO GOT AN INFORMATION FROM ANNUAL INFORMATION REPORT WING EXH IBITING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED IMMOVABLE PROPERTY OF RS.25,93,000/- ON 22 ND JANUARY, 2009. THE AO HAS PASSED AN EX PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.25,93,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY. DISSAT ISFIED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER I N APPEAL AND APPLIED FOR PERMISSION TO LEAD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THIS P RAYER OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN REJECTED BY THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE GROUND TH AT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE AO. 3. ON DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED T O APPRECIATE THAT EVEN ITA NO.900/DEL/2016 3 IF THERE IS NEGLIGENCE AT THE END OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN, PUNISHMENT IN THE SHAPE OF TAX LIABILITY WILL NOT BE DISPROPORTIONATE TO THE ALLEGED NEGLIGENCE. THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THIS ASPECT. THE SUB-CLAUSE (4) OF RULE 46A CONTEMPLATES THAT LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY COULD CALL FOR ANY EVIDENCE WHI CH CAN HELP HER RESOLVE THE CONTROVERSY IN A MORE JUSTIFIABLE MANNE R. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I SET ASIDE BOTH THE ORDER S OF LD. REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF T HE AO. THE ASSESSEE WILL BE AT LIBERTY TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER EXPLANATION. THE LD. AO SHALL GRANT DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO TH E ASSESSEE. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.12.201 6. SD/- [RAJPAL YADAV] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED, 27 TH DECEMBER, 2016. DK ITA NO.900/DEL/2016 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.