Kishan Soni, Angul V. ACIT, Central Circle-1, Bhubaneswar

ITSSA 99/CTK/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3749 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 03-11-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SAAD KIDWAI
• Assessee Lawyers: K C JENA
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CUTTACK BENCH CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI N.S.SAINI, AM & SHRI PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JM IT (SS) A NO . 99 /CTK/201 7 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 3 - 20 1 4 ) KISHAN SONI, NAVA MISHRA COLONY, HATATOTA, TALCHER, DIST - ANGUL - 759100 VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1, BHUBANESWAR ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A NLPS 4915 N ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /AS SESSEE BY : SHRI K.C.JENA, AR /REVENUE BY : SHRI SAAD KIDWAI, CITDR / DATE OF HEARING : 1 5 / 0 5 /201 8 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 17 / 05 /201 8 / O R D E R PER SHRI PAV AN KUMAR GADALE, JM : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 2, BHUBANESWAR DATED 30.08.2017 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN REJECTING THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF FRESH/ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE U/R 46A AS ID ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ASKED FOR ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUCH REJECTION IS AGAINST THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. 2. LD COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,24 , 040/ - BY NOT ACCEPTING THE VALUATION REPORT OF APPROVED VALUER WITH EFFECTIVE DATE OF VALUATION AS 28.09 .2012. 3. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY ADDED, DELETED, AMENDED BEFORE OR DURING THE TIME OF HEARING. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RETAIL TRADING OF GOLD JEWELLERY AND REPAIR WORKS IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S J.B. JEWELLERS. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SURVEY OPERATION CONDUCTED U/S.132A OF THE ACT IN THE JEWELLERY SHOP OF THE ASSESSEE IT (SS) A NO. 99 /201 7 2 LOCATED IN HENGOLA MARKET COMPLEX, HATATOTA ROAD, TAL CHER, ANGUL, ODISHA ON 18.07.2013. THE AO CALLED FOR THE VARIOUS DETAILS DURING THE SURVEY, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE VALUE OF STOCK AND ALSO THE CASH FOUND DURING THE SURVEY. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE ASSESSMENT CONSIDERING THE MATERIAL A VAILABLE ON RECORD AND MADE VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 20,73,160/ - AND PASSED ORDER U/S. 153A/ 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 28.03.2016. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AO. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FINDINGS OF AO, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF VALUATION OF GOLD JEWELLERY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO AND THE CIT(A) SHOULD NO T HAVE VALUED THE STOCK @RS. 31,500 / - INSTEAD OF RS.2 9,400 / - PER 10 GRAMS OF 22 CARAT. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE VALUATION REPORT DATED 07.06.2017 IN WHICH THE GOLD HAS BEEN VALUED AT RS. 28,187/ - PER 10 GRAMS. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES HAVE COMMITTED GROSS ERROR IN NOT PROVIDING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE NOR THE CIT(A) HAS ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL IT (SS) A NO. 99 /201 7 3 EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, HE PRAYED THAT MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF CIT(A). 6. PER CONTRA , LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND OPPOSED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND, PRIMA FACIE, THE MAIN CRUX OF THE ISSUE THAT THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER RULE 46A IN RESPECT OF SUBMITTING VALUATION REPORT. LD. ARS CONTENTION IS THAT VALUATION REPORT COULD NOT BE FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING SAND THE SAME WAS FILED BEFORE THE APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS, HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) HAS REJECTED THE SAME. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE CIT(A) BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEES RIGHT SHOULD NOT BE CURTAILED AND ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A AND EVIDE NCE IN THE FORM OF VALUATION REPORT WHICH THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE CONSIDERED AND DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS INSTEAD OF DISMISSING THE APPEAL AT THE INITIAL STAGE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CANNOT BE SUSTAIN ED AND THEREFORE, WE DIRECT THE CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS AND ALSO THE ASSESSEE SHOULD COOPERATE IN SUBMITTING THE INFORMATION. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 8. IN THE RESUL T, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IT (SS) A NO. 99 /201 7 4 O RDER PRONOU NCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 / 05 / 201 8 . SD/ - ( N. S. SAINI ) SD/ - ( PA V AN KUMAR GADALE ) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER CUTTACK ; DATED 17 / 05 /201 8 . . / PKM , SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, ( SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ) , / ITAT, CUTTACK 1. / THE APPELLANT - KISHAN SON I, NAVA MISHRA COLONY, HATATOTA, TALCHER, DIST - ANGUL - 759100 2. / THE RESPONDENT - A CIT, CIRCLE - 1, BHUBANESWAR 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, CUTTACK 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//