Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, Agra v. I.T.O.-4(3), Agra

ITA 227/AGR/2011 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 22720314 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ABRPA5701E
Bench Agra
Appeal Number ITA 227/AGR/2011
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant Pradeep Kumar Agarwal, Agra
Respondent I.T.O.-4(3), Agra
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 01-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 01-11-2011
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 16-06-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA (SMC) BENCH AGRA BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 227/AGRA/2011 ASSTT. YEAR : 2001-02 PRADEEP KUMAR AGARWAL VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER PROP. M/S. PRADEEP KUMAR SANJEEV KUMAR 4(3) AGR A. OPP. PYAYU KINARI BAZAR AGRA. (PAN : ABRPA 5701 E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : SHRI NAVIN GARGH ADVOCATE FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI A.K. SHARMA JR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 01.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.11.2011 ORDER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 01.03 2011 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-II DEHRADUN C AMP AT AGRA ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1.1 BECAUSE IN ANY VIEW THE PROCEEDING INITIATED B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S. 147 & CONFIRMED BY THE LD. C IT(A) IS WRONG ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW OF THE CASE. 1.2 BECAUSE IN ANY VIEW THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE U/S. 147/143(3) IS BAD IN LAW WRONG ILLEGAL PERVERSE AND IS LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED. 2.1 BECAUSE IN ANY VIEW THE ADDITION OF RS.2 00 00 0/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED / UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT U/S. 68 OF I.T. ACT CONFIRMED BY THE LD. C.I.T. (A) IS GROSSLY ARBITRAR Y WRONG ILLEGAL AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW OF THE CASE. 2.2 BECAUSE THE ABOVE ADDITION OF RS.2 00 000/- CO NFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) BY NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATING THE FACT DULY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE OF RS.2 00 000/- HAS BEEN DULY SHO WN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS AND VIDE REPLY DT. 16.02.2006 BEFORE T HE ASSESSING 2 OFFICER IT WAS CATEGORICALLY SUBMITTED THAT THE D.D . OF RS.2 00 000/- RECEIVED IS THE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE MONEY RECEIVED BA CK AND IS NOT OF ANY SHARE PURCHASE AND SALE. THE ONUS STANDS DISCHA RGED. 3. BECAUSE THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 234B AS PER N. D. DT. 27.02.2006 IS WRONG AND ILLEGAL. 4. BECAUSE IN ANY VIEW AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO TH E ABOVE GROUNDS ADDITION MADE INTEREST CHARGED IN / AND T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ARE WRONG ILLEGAL WITHOUT PROPER OPP ORTUNITY BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE FACTS AND LAW OF THE CASE. 2. THE FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AR E NOT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. THEREFORE THERE IS NO NEED TO REPEAT THE SAME FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORT UNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING HIS CLAIM BEFORE HIM. HE REQUESTED T HAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO D ECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UNDER LAW AFTER GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE . HE ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING EACH AND EVERY EVIDENCE FOR PROVING THE C LAIM IN DISPUTE AND IS LIKELY TO SUCCEED IN THE CASE BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF T HE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISIONS OF THIS BENCH IN ITA NO. 63/AGR/2009 (A.Y. 2002-03) R AJEEV MANGAL & SONS VS. ITO AND ITA NO. 61/AGR/2009 (A.Y. 2002-03) R.P. MAN GAL & SONS (HUF) VS. ITO. HE HAS ALSO FILED SMALL PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 17 AS WELL AS COPIES OF SAID DECISIONS. 4. ON THE CONTRARY THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDE R PASSED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE BOTH PARTIES ESPECIALLY THE ORD ERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ALONGWITH SMALL PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE 3 CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 17 AS WELL AS THE ORDERS OF T HIS BENCH. I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMPLETED AS SESSMENT U/S. 144/147 OF THE ACT ON 22.02.2006 AND THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHO RITY HAS ALSO PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH IS NOT IN DETAIL I AM NOT COM MENTING ON THE MERIT OF THE CASE. IT WILL PREJUDICE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUT HORITY. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE I FEEL THAT THE ASSESSEE IS DESERVING FOR SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM BEFORE THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THEREFORE THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS SET ASIDE TO THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO D ECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 01.11.2011. SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 1 ST NOVEMBER 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. DR ITAT AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY