Smt.Anusuyamma, Bangalore V. ITO-Ward-4(3)(1), Bangalore

MA 239/BANG/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4300 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 08-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 25-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANAND
• Assessee Lawyers: K J KAMATH
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A ND SHRI LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER M.P. NO. 239/BANG/2017 (IN ITA NO . 2 227 /BANG/201 6 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 11 - 12 SMT. ANUSUYAMMA, #8 /1, BEML TOWNSHIP, GM PALYA, NEW THIPPASANDRA POST, BANGALORE 560 075. PAN: AIOPA0132D VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4 [3] [1], BANGALORE. APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI K.J. KAMATH, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANAND, ADDL. CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 25 .0 1 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 08 . 0 2 .201 9 O R D E R PER SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS M.P. IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN THIS M.P. , THIS IS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN APPARENT MISTAKES I N THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH SHOULD BE RECTIFIED U/S. 254(2) OF IT A CT. 2. IN COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, IT IS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF ASSESSEE THAT IN PARA 5 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER, IT IS NOTED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL VIDE APPLICA TION DATED 22.02.2017 ALONG WITH AN AFFIDAVIT IN THE FORM OF LETTER FROM THE TAHSILDAR, DEVANAHALLY. THEREAFTER, HE AGAIN DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO PARA 10 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER AND HE POINTED OUT THAT IN THIS PARA , IT IS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF TAHSILD AR CERTIFICATE IS NOT ADMITTED AS NO APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR ADMISSION O F ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. M.P. NO. 239/BANG/2017 (IN ITA NO. 2227/BANG/2016) PAGE 2 OF 3 HE SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT BECAU SE ALONG WITH THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED ON 27.02.2017 ALONG WITH THE LETTER DATED 22.02.2017, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVI T OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN PARA 19 OF THE SAID AFFIDAVIT, THE ASSESSEE HAS MAD E A PRAYER FOR ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDE R THESE FACTS, IT SHOULD BE ACCEPTED THAT THERE IS AN APPARENT MISTAKE IN THE I MPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER WHICH SHOULD BE RECTIFIED. THE LD. DR OF REVENUE S UBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO APPARENT MISTAKE. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FI ND THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE ASSESSEE DATED 14.02.2017 IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD WH ICH HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ALONG WITH THE LETTER DATED 22.02.2017 SUBMITTED ON 27.02.2017. PARA 19 OF THE AFFIDAVIT IS REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW FOR READY REFERENCE. 19. THAT, THEREFORE, IT IS PRAYED THE ADDITIONAL EV IDENCES PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE ADMITTED AND APPEAL BE DISPOSED OFF ON MERITS FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE OF JUSTICE. 4. IN VIEW OF THIS AFFIDAVIT AND ITS CONTENTS IN PA RA 19 AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE REQUEST FOR ADMISSI ON OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHEREAS THE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED IN PARA NO . 10 OF THE IMPUGNED TRIBUNAL ORDER THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS NOT ADMITTED BECAUSE NO APPLICATION WAS MADE FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE. UNDER THESE FACTS, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO RECALL THIS TRIBUNAL OR DER FOR LIMITED PURPOSE OF FIRST DECIDING THE ISSUE REGARDING THE ADMISSION OF ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE AND THE SAME IS ADMITTED WHILE DECIDING ABOUT ADMIS SIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THEN THE ISSUE ON MERIT IS ALSO TO BE DECI DED AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IF ADMITTED. HENCE WE RECALL T HIS TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF FIRST DECIDING THE ADMISSIBILITY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND IF IT IS FOUND THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ADMI SSIBLE THEN THE TRIBUNAL HAS TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERIT ALSO AFRESH IN THE LIG HT OF SUCH ADMITTED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IF ANY. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECT ED TO FIX THIS APPEAL FOR M.P. NO. 239/BANG/2017 (IN ITA NO. 2227/BANG/2016) PAGE 3 OF 3 HEARING ON 12.03.2019. SINCE THE DATE OF HEARING I S PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT, NO SEPARATE NOTICE OF HEARING IS REQUIR ED TO BE ISSUED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE M.P. FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ST ANDS ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENT IONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE. SD/- SD/- (LALIET KUMAR) (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 08 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. /MS/ COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 4. CIT(A) 2. RESPONDENT 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE 3. CIT 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE.