Sh. Karanveer Singh Tiwana, Patiala v. ITO, W-4, Patiala

ITA 1125/CHANDI/2017 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2017 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 112521514 RSA 2017
Assessee PAN ATAPS8515K
Bench Chandigarh
Appeal Number ITA 1125/CHANDI/2017
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 21 day(s)
Appellant Sh. Karanveer Singh Tiwana, Patiala
Respondent ITO, W-4, Patiala
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2017
Last Hearing Date 15-11-2017
First Hearing Date 15-11-2017
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 07-07-2017
Judgment Text
1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHA CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1125/CHD/2017 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SH. KARANVEER SINGH TIWANA VS. ITO VILL- CHHANA NATHUWALA WARD- 4 PATIALA PATIALA PAN: ATAPS8515K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN DEPARTMENT BY : SMT CHANDRAKANTA DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28/11/2017 O R D E R PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR A.M : THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) PATIALA DT. 05/05/2017. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LEARNED C.L.T. (A) PATIALA HAS ERRED B Y NOT ALLOWING THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES EXPLAINING THE SOURCE OF DE POSIT IN THE BANKS DURING COURSE OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY & HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT PRODUCE THE EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS NO NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON HIM & ASSE SSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 144 OF INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THAT THE LEARNED C.L.T. (A) PATIALA HAS ERRED BY NOT CONSIDERING THE DIRECTION OF ITAT TO DECIDE THE GROUND NO 3 WITH RE SPECT TO ADDITION OF RS 9415000/- MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. THE ID CIT(A) HAS NOT EVEN CONSIDERED THE WITHDR AWALS FROM BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE RE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUN TS & FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THE BANK STATEMENTS WERE AVAILABLE DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS & THESE BANK STATEMENTS ARE NOT IN THE NATURE OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 4. THAT THE LEARNED C.L.T. (A) PATIALA HAS WRONGLY DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE REMAND REPORT SUBMITTED BY ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF FACT THAT THE AO HAS 2 NOT OBJECTED THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE & REQUESTED TO DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS . 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 9415000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ADDITION ON ACCO UNT OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MADE BY ID AO WITHOUT AFFORDING O PPORTUNITY TO APPELLANT. 6. THAT THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS 9415000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK AC COUNTS & SOURCES . 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD AND DISPOSED OFF . 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY 2009-10 WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 DETERMINING INCOME AT RS. 95 65 000/- AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF R S. 1 50 000/-. THE MATTER WENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER TRAVELLED TO ITAT CHANDIGARH. VIDE ORDER DT. 08/12/2015 IN ITA NO. 40/CHD/2014 FOR THE AY 2009-1 0 THE TRIBUNAL HAS DIRECTED THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE ON GROUND NO. 3. FOR T HE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE GROUND NO. 3 IS BEING MENTIONED BELOW: 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING TH E ADDITION OF RS. 9415000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT WITHOUT APPRECI ATING THE FACT THAT ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT HAV E BEEN MADE BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY TO APPELLANT. 4. THE DIRECTION GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL TO THE LD. C IT(A) IS AS UNDER: . GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL FILED BEFORE HIM. IT IS TRUE THAT WHILE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICA TED GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND REMAND THE MATTER TO HIM WITH A DIRECTION TO DE CIDE THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IN ACC ORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING H EARD TO THE ASSESSEE . 5. THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS OF THE ITAT HELD THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT HAS ONLY DIRECTED THAT THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL BEFORE CIT (A) BE DECIDED I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING 'DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESS EE' 6. WHILE ADJUDICATING THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES ARE OF (I) A COPY OF CASHBOOK FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 II ) THE COPY OF CASHBOOK FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2008-09 III) COPIES OF BANK STA TEMENTS FROM 01/04/2007 TO 3 31/03/2009 IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IV) COPIE S OF BANK ACCOUNTS FROM 01/04/2007 TO 31/03/2009 V) COPY OF SALE DEED OF AG RICULTURAL LAND SOLD BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ALONG WITH THE ENG LISH TRANSLATION AND VI) COPY OF AFFIDAVITS OF FATHER AND BROTHERS OF THE AP PELLANT. 7. THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADM IT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULES 46A OF THE IT RULES 1962 WHI CH READS AS UNDER:- PRODUCTION PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE [DEPUT Y COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [AND COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)]. 46A . (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR AS THE CASE MAY BE TH E COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] ANY EVIDENCE WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY OTHER THAN T HE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE [ASSESS ING OFFICER] EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES NAMELY : (A) (A) (A) (A) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED; OR (B) (B) (B) (B) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAU SE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] ; OR (C) (C)(C) (C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAU SE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEV ANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR (D) (D) (D) (D) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS MADE THE ORDER AP PEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO A DDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. IT IS CLEAR FROM A PLAIN READING OF RULE 46A(1) TH AT IT PLACES A BAR ON THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE ANY FRESH ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE BEFO RE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES MENTIONED THEREIN. UNLESS HE PROVES THE EXISTENCE O F ANY OF THE FOUR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES MENTIONED IN CLAUSES (A) TO (D) OF TH E SUB-RULE. 8. WE FIND THAT THE EVIDENCES THAT ARE BEING SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE GOES TO THE ROOT CAUSE OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED WHICH MAKES THESE EVIDENCES RELEVANT FOR THE GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL. IN SU CH CONDITIONS RULE 46A (C) IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. HENCE THE MATTER IS BEING REMANDED BACK TO THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE BY P ROVIDING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. AND WE BELIEVE THAT TH E ASSESSEE WILL NOT BELAY THE CONFIDENCE REPOSED UPON AND WILL NOT ABUSE THE OPPORTUNITY GIVEN WHILE SUBMITTING COMPLIANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). HENCE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS REMANDED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THE SUBMISSIONS AFRESH. 4 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 28/11/2017 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR