Ram Kumar, Delhi V. ITO, Ward-37(4), New Delhi

ITA 9810/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9608 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence; Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.9810/Del/2019 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Ram Kumar, H.No.14, Village-Chopal, Shiv Mandir Pana, Nizampur, North West Delhi, New Delhi. PAN: AUYPK3037H Vs. ITO, Ward-37(4), New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri V.K. Sabharwal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 07.06.2022 Date of Pronouncement : 07.07.2022 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.10.2019 of the CIT(A)-13, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. Application of the assessee under Rule 29 of IT(AT) Rules, 1963 dated 04.04.2022. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the affidavits of Shri Harpreet Singh, Shri Gurpreet Singh and Shri Bahadur Singh along with copies of their Aadhar Cards and confirmations could not be submitted before the ITA No.9810/Del/2019 2 authorities below. Therefore, the same are being filed as an additional evidence before this Tribunal. These relevant additional evidences are necessary for proper adjudication of the grievance of the assessee and to impart substantial justice in this case, therefore, the same may kindly be admitted. The ld. Counsel has placed reliance on the following decisions:- a. CIT Vs. Text Hundred India (P) Ltd., reported as ITA Nos.2077, 2061 and 2065/2010 (DHC) b. Mohd. Gulzar Vs. ITO, A.Y. 2011-12, reported as 5139/D/2015 (ITAT Delhi) c. Natha Singh Vs. Financial Commissioner, reported as 1976 AIR 1053,1976 SCR (3) 620 (SC) d. Braganza Construction (P) Ltd. Vs. ACIT, reported as Writ Petition No. 360/2002 Assessment Year: 2002-03 j 04-08-2008 (Bom) 3. Replying to the above, the ld Sr. DR strongly opposed the admission of additional evidence. However, in all fairness, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that if it is found just and proper to admit the additional evidence, then, the same may kindly be forwarded to the AO for consideration and fresh adjudication as per requirement of Rule 29 of the IT(AT) Rules, 1963. ITA No.9810/Del/2019 3 4. On careful consideration of the above submissions, I am of the considered view that the assessee is entitled to file additional evidence before the Tribunal under Rule 29 of the IT(AT) Rules, 1963. But, for taking the benefit of such provision, the assessee is duty-bound to demonstrate that there was sufficient reason for which the assessee was prevented from filing such relevant evidence before the authorities below at the time of assessment and the first appellate proceedings. From the submissions of the assessee in the application/petition under consideration, especially para 2 to 4, it is clearly discernible that the appellant after his hectic persuasion and contacting the purchasers a number of times either personally or through telephonically has received their affidavits, wherein both the purchasers and their fathers confirmed that against the purchase of agriculture land from the appellant, the conveyance deed of which was registered on 20.04.2011 with the office of Sub-Registrar, they have paid a sum of Rs. 20 lakhs in cash on 31.01.2011 to the appellant and the balance amount of Rs. 6,70,000/- was paid to the appellant on 20.04.2011, out of which the appellant has deposited a sum of Rs.19,40,000/- to his SB A/c No. 24122010007302 on 02.02.2011 maintained with Syndicate Bank. In view of the above, I am of the considered opinion that considering the grounds of the assessee and the issue involved in this appeal, the affidavits filed by the assessee as an additional evidence are relevant clarifying the factual position of the explanation of the assessee. However, the assessee could not fetch this relevant evidence during the proceedings before the authorities below and after herculean exercise the ITA No.9810/Del/2019 4 assessee could gather the same after completion of the proceedings before the ld.CIT(A). The cause shown by the assessee is bona fide which prevented the assessee from filing these documents before the authorities below, therefore, respectfully following the proposition rendered in the judgement of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Text Hundred India (P) Ltd. (supra) and the order of the ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of Mohd. Gulzar (supra), the additional evidence is admitted for consideration by the AO. The impugned assessment as well as first appellate order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the AO for a fresh consideration and adjudication after considering the entire explanation and documentary evidence filed by the assesee including the additional evidence admitted by him in the earlier part of this order and after allowing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. It is expected from the AO to frame a fresh assessment order without being prejudiced from the earlier assessment and appellate orders. 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 07.07.2022. Sd/- (C.M. GARG) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 07 th July, 2022. ITA No.9810/Del/2019 5 dk Copy forwarded to 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asstt. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi