Shri. Avinash B Avhad, Pune V. Dy. CIT Cen Cir-1[1] Pune, Pune

MA 32/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1202 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 23-10-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 14-09-2012
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VERMA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A NO.32/PN/12 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.355/PN/2009) (A.Y. 2006-07) SHRI AVINASH BHASKAR AVHAD C/O SHRI E.S. VENKATRAMAN ASSOCIATES, 269, M.G. ROAD, PUNE 411001 PAN: AAOPA8892Q APPELLANT VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL GANOO RESPONDENT BY : SMT. M.S . VERMA DATE OF HEARING: 11.10.2013 DATE OF ORDER : 23.10.2013 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION HAS BEEN FILED BY A SSESSEE U/S. 254(2) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 INTER-ALIA ITAT V IDE PARA 10 HAS DEALT ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FOR A.Y 2006 -07. THE MATTER HAS BEEN RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE BASIS OF ORDER OF ITAT SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER HAS BEEN DEAL T IN PARA 10.1 WHICH READ AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSED WITH REGARDS TO THE ADDIT ION IN QUESTION. THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT HAVE TO BE 2 CONFRONTED WITH DEPONENT BEFORE REJECTING THE SAME WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS REGARD. SO, WE RESTORE T HIS ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE ISSUE ON A PR ELIMINARY GROUND, WE ARE REFRAINED TO COMMENT ON MERITS OF TH E ISSUE AT HAND. 2. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE SUBMITTED ABOVE STATEMENT DOES NOT CORRECTLY REFLEC T THE FACTS. IN THIS CASE THERE WAS NO DEPOSITION OR AFFIDAVIT. AS SESSEE HAS ALL ALONG SUBMITTED THAT HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DULY MAI NTAINED AND PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SAME SHOW CASH BALANCE AS ON DATE RS.7,68,439/- WHICH IS MORE THAN ADEQUATE TO EXPLAIN THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER O F RS.3,87,950/-. IN THIS BACKGROUND LEARNED AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT MATTER NEED TO BE DEC IDED BY ITAT INSTEAD OF SETTING ASIDE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. ON OTHER HAND, DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TH E CIT (A) AND REQUESTED TO DISMISS THE SAME. 3. WE FIND THAT TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE BY O BSERVING AS UNDER: 10.1 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION IN QUESTION WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSED WITH REGARDS TO THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT HAVE TO BE CONFRONTED WITH DEPONENT BEFOR E REJECTING THE SAME WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS REGARD. SO, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUA TE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE A RE 3 RESTORING THE ISSUE ON A PRELIMINARY GROUND, WE ARE REFRAINED TO COMMENT ON MERITS OF THE ISSUE AT HAND . 4. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT WAS FOUND THAT LEARNE D AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO CO NTEND THAT NO AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED WITH REGARD TO THE ISSUE RAISED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. IN FACT, THERE IS AN AFFIDAVIT IN THIS R EGARD AND ORDER HAS BEEN DELIVERED IN THE BACKGROUND OF SAME AFFIDA VIT. SO IT IS NOT JUSTIFIED ON THE PART OF LEARNED AUTHORIZED REP RESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE TO SAY THAT TRIBUNAL WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SETTING ASIDE THE MATTER TO ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY AFFIDAVIT ON THE ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF ITAT ON ISSUE NEED NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DAY OF 23 RD OCTOBER 2013. SD/- SD/- (G.S.PANNU) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 23 RD OCTOBER 2013 GCVSR COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE 2) DEPARTMENT 3) THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE 4) THE CIT-I, PUNE 5) THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, I.T.A.T., PUNE