Parinay Organisers Pvt.Ltd., Surat V. The ACIT.,Cent..Circle-4, Surat

ITSSA 49/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0551 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 18-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: O P VAISHNAV CIT D R
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence; Validity of assessment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , , , B, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD, B BENCH . .. . . .. . , !' !' !' !', , , , #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'( #$ %&'(, , , , )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' )* + ) ' BEFORE S/SHRI G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT AND ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) IT(SS)A NO.49/AHD/2010 [ASSTT.YEAR : 2003-2004] PARINAY ORGANISERS P. LTD. SHIV SHAKTI SHOPPING CENTRE BESIDES RAM MANDIR GOD DOD ROAD SURAT. PAN : AACCP 3640 G /VS. ACIT, CENT.CIR.4 SURAT. ( (( ( -. -. -. -. / APPELLANT) ( (( ( /0-. /0-. /0-. /0-. / RESPONDENT) 1& 2 3 ) / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MEHUL SHAH + 2 3 ) / REVENUE BY : SHRI O.P. VAISHNAV, CIT.DR 5 2 &(* / DATE OF HEARING : 8 TH JANUARY, 2015 678 2 &(* / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02-02-2015 )9 / O R D E R PER G.C. GUPTA, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSTT.YEAR 2003-2004 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A). 2. THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A S WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE IT ACT, 1961. IT(SS)A NO.49/AHD/2010 -2- 3. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTS ET SUBMITTED THAT THIS ISSUE WAS NOT DECIDED BY THE CIT(A), AND NO SUCH GR OUND OF APPEAL WAS TAKEN BEFORE HIM. HOWEVER, HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS GROUND WAS TAKEN AS ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LEARNED D R HAS OPPOSED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE SHOULD HAVE BEEN RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A). W E HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO A ND THE CIT(A). THE ISSUE IN THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS LEGAL IN NATU RE, AND THEREFORE, COULD BE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HOW EVER, SINCE THERE WAS NO DECISION ON THIS ISSUE BY THE CIT(A), WE RESTORE TH E ISSUE IN THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF T HE CIT(A) WITH DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME ON MERITS AFTER ALLOWING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. 4. THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER: 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS W ELL AS ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.1,10,00,000/- U/S.68 OF TH E ACT AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 5. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED T HAT SUFFICIENT TIME WAS NOT ALLOWED BY THE AO TO FILE NECESSARY EVIDENC ES. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS NOT ADMITTED BY THE CIT(A). HE REFERRED TO PAGE NOS.90 TO 92 OF ITS COMPILATION FI LED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH IS A COPY OF CHEQUE FOR REPAYMENT OF RS.1.10 CRORES AND THE BANK STATEMENT THEREOF. HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS EVIDENCE GOES TO ROOT OF THE MATTER AND SHOULD BE ADMITTED. THE LEARNED DR OPPO SED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE C ONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE LEGAL ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE HAS BEEN IT(SS)A NO.49/AHD/2010 -3- RESTORED BY US TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A), WE CONSID ER IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE REGARDING MERITS OF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WI TH DIRECTION TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND T O DECIDE THE ISSUE DE NOVO IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BOTH THE PARTIES. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY . 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONE D HEREINABOVE. SD/- SD/- ( %&'( %&'( %&'( %&'( / ANIL CHATURVEDI) )* + )* + )* + )* + /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . .. . . .. . /G.C. GUPTA) !' !' !' !' /VICE-PRESIDENT C OPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : APPELLANT 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR/AR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD