Mr. Padiyar Kiran Gajanan, Margao V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Margao., Margao

MA 44/PAN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3701 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 19-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: D E ROBINSON
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH, PANAJI BEFORE SHRI N.S. SAINI , HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A.NO S . 4 4 & 45 /PNJ/2015 ( ITA NO S . 96 & 97 /PNJ/201 3 & CO NO S .1 4 & 15 /PNJ/201 3 ) (ASST. YEAR : 20 07 - 08 ) 1) MR. KIRAN GAJANAN PADIYAR, 12, 2 ND FLOOR, SAPANA CHAMBERS, VARDE VALAULIKAR, MARGAO GOA. VS. AC IT, CIRCLE - 1, MARGAO GOA. PAN NO. ACNPG 1671 Q 2) MRS. NEENA KIRAN PADIYAR, 12, 2 ND FLOOR, SAPANA CHAMBERS, VARDE VALAULIKAR, MARGAO GOA. PAN NO. ADZPK 4652 J (APPELLANT S ) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI D.E. ROBINSON ADV. DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI PRASHANT GADEKAR - DR DATE OF HEARING : 1 9 / 1 1 /2015 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 1 9 / 1 1 /201 5 . O R D E R PER GEORGE MATHAN , JUDICIAL MEMBER TH E S E ARE THE MISC. APPLICATION S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE S AGAINST THE CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN I.T.A.NO S . 96 & 97 /PNJ/201 3 & C.O.NO S . 1 4 & 15 /PNJ/201 3 , DATED 1 6 /06/2015 . 2. SHRI D.E. ROBINSON, ADV OCATE REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI PRASHANT GADEKAR, LEARNED DR REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. 2 M A NO. 4 4 & 45 /PNJ/201 5 3 . IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD IN ITS ORDER ADMITTED FRESH EVIDEN CE AND RESTORE D THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR RE - ADJUD I CATION. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT ORIGINALLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAD VIDE AN ORDER DATED 23/08/2013 , ADMITTED SUCH AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND ALLOWED THE REVENUES APPEAL. IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAD, VIDE AN ORDER DATED 20/01/2015 , SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL . IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ITSEL F WAS WRONG AND IT WAS THE SUBMISSION THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED. THE APPEAL WAS LIABLE TO BE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 . IN REPLY, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. 6 . A PERUSAL OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN TAX APPEAL NO. 45 & 60/2014 CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND HAS DIRECTED THE TRIBUNA L TO DECIDE THE APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING, APPELLANT AND RESPONDENT, AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. NOW, TO SAY THAT THE ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS ITSELF WAS ERRONEOUS IS IN EFFECT ATTEMPTING TO BIND THE HANDS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE FACTS . IN ANY CASE, THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT ADJUDICATE D ON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN SENT TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AS THESE WERE THE FRESH EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND WERE NOT BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS NOT AS IF THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE HEA RD BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES WHEN ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, MORE SO, THE FRESH EVIDENCE. IT IS ON ACCOUNT OF THE PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN 3 M A NO. 4 4 & 45 /PNJ/201 5 RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FURTHER, AN ATTEMPT TO BIND THE HANDS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN RESPECT OF ASCERTAINING THE CORRECT FACTS IS IN EFFECT THE ATTEMPT TO CURTAIL THE PROCESS OF RENDERING JUSTICE. INSOFAR AS , THE TRIBUNAL IS HIGHEST FACT FINDING BODY AND ANY ERROR IN THE FINDING OF THE FACTS BY THE TRIBUNAL WILL IN EFFECT MAKE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL PERVERSE. IN ANY CASE, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER OF THE TRI BUNAL AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE MISC. APPLICATIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES STAND DISMISSED. 7 . IN THE RESULT, MISC. APPLICATION S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE S STAND DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT AT THE CLOSE OF THE HEARING ON THURSDAY , THE 1 9 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 201 5 AT GOA . SD/ - SD/ - (N.S.SAINI) (GEORGE MATHAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 9 TH NOVEMBER , 201 5 . VR/ - COPY TO: 1 . THE ASSESSEE. 2 . THE REVENUE. 3 . THE CIT 4 . THE CIT(A) 5 . THE D.R . 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PANAJI 4 M A NO. 4 4 & 45 /PNJ/201 5 DATE INITIAL ORIGINAL DICTATION PAD & DRAFT ARE ENCLOSED IN THE FILE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 1 9 . 1 1 .2015 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 20 . 1 1 .2015 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 20 / 1 1 /2015 JM/AM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER 20 / 1 1 /2015 JM/AM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS 20 / 1 1 /2015 SR.PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 19 / 1 1 /2015 SR.PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 20 / 1 1 /2015 SR.PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER