Shri Piyush D. Modi,, Ankleshwar v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3,, Bharuch

ITA 2793/AHD/2013 | 2009-2010
Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 279320514 RSA 2013
Assessee PAN ADFPM4071R
Bench Ahmedabad
Appeal Number ITA 2793/AHD/2013
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 1 day(s)
Appellant Shri Piyush D. Modi,, Ankleshwar
Respondent The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3,, Bharuch
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 30-09-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 30-09-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 30-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 30-09-2016
Assessment Year 2009-2010
Appeal Filed On 28-11-2013
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 2793/AHD/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 SHRI PIYUSH D. MODI 13 SUPER ARCADE COMPLEX VALIA CHOKDI ANKLESHWAR PAN: ADFPM 4071 R VS INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3 BHARUCH / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MUKUND BAKSHI AR REVENUE BY : SHRI RAHUL KUMAR SR DR / DATE OF HEARING : 30/09/2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/09/2016 / O R D E R THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL CHALLENGING THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN :- I) NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46 A. II) ADDING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT IN BANK ACCOUNT WHICH PER TAINED TO JAGGERY TRADING AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT THE A SSESSEE APPOINTED AN INCOME-TAX ADVOCATE MR. KUMUDBHAI J. MODI WHO DID NOT APPEARED BEFORE THE LD. AO. THEREAFTER MRS. DIPTIBEN PATEL ADVOCA TE WAS APPOINTED WHO APPEARED ON 08.11.2011 AND SHE WAS ASKED FOR CERTAI N INFORMATION BY THE LD. AO. MRS. DIPTIBEN PATEL ON HER OWN INFORMED THE AO THAT ALL THE AMOUNTS CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BELONGS TO ASSESSEES BROTHER. THIS LED TO IMPUGNED ADDITION WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BEFORE THE L D.CIT(A) ALONG WITH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. AN AFFIDAVIT IN THIS REGARD W AS ALSO FILED. 3. LD. CIT(A) THOUGH CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT HOW EVER DID NOT ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A. THE CONTEN TS OF THE AFFIDAVIT WERE SMC-ITA NO. 2793/AHD/2013 SHRI PIYUSH D. MODI VS. ITO AY : 2009-10 2 NOT CONTROVERTED. THE REFUSAL OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS WITHOUT PROPER BASIS AND UNJUSTIFIED. S INCE THE ADDITION IN QUESTION HAS BEEN MADE WITHOUT THERE BEING A FAULT ON THE PART OF ASSESSEE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE IT IS PRAYED THAT THE I SSUE MAY BE SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO ADJUDICATE T HE SAME AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD. 4. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LD. CIT(A) FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE D EPOSITION IN AFFIDAVIT CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE SAID ADVOCATES MR. KUMUD BHAI J. MODI AND MRS. DIPTIBEN PATEL DID NOT REPRESENT THE ASSESSEES CAS E PROPERLY. LD. CIT(A) THOUGH CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT HOWEVER AT THE END REFUSED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE IN MY CONSIDERED V IEW INTEREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE SERVED IF THE ISSUES IN QUESTION ARE SET AS IDE AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING THE ASSESSEE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 AT AHMEDABAD. SD/- R.P. TOLANI (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/09/2016 *BIJU T. SMC-ITA NO. 2793/AHD/2013 SHRI PIYUSH D. MODI VS. ITO AY : 2009-10 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. / DR ITAT AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER TRUE COPY / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) / ITAT AHMEDABAD