M/s Sanghi Distributors, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 985/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 98521514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-04-2012
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 10-10-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR SEHGAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH B, CHANDIGARH BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.985/CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S SANGHI DISTRIBUTORS, VS. THE A.C.I.T., SCO:74(FF), SECTOR 38-C, CIRCLE-4(1), CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAUFS7478J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA, DR DATE OF HEARING : 30.04.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.04.2012 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DA TED 24.08.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEA L AGAINST VARIOUS DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CON FIRMED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). 3. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, WHICH COULD NOT BE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER BUT WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS), WHICH WERE NOT CON SIDERED BY THE CIT 2 (APPEALS) AS NO APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITI ONAL EVIDENCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS). THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT PRESENT EVIDENCE GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND POINTED OUT THAT SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITY WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE. 5. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS FROM T IME TO TIME BUT HAD NOT FURNISHED THE REQUISITE DETAILS/EVIDENCES BEFOR E THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONSEQUENTLY ADDITIONS WERE MADE UNDER VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENDITURE/ISSUES. BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) THE A SSESSEE FURNISHED THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE CIT (APPEALS), BEING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LEA RNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE US. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE, WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING RELEVANT TO DISPOSE OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. HOWEVE R, WE REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAID ISSUES AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES SOUGHT TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE ALLOWED TO TH E ASSESSEE. THUS THE 3 GROUNDS OF RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2012. SD/- SD/- (MEHAR SINGH) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH APRIL, 2012 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 4