Vishal Jindal, New Delhi v. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3046/DEL/2011 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2012 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 304620114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AALPJ5289H
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 3046/DEL/2011
Duration Of Justice 8 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant Vishal Jindal, New Delhi
Respondent ITO, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 23-02-2012
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted H
Tribunal Order Date 23-02-2012
Date Of Final Hearing 23-02-2012
Next Hearing Date 23-02-2012
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 09-06-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `H : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI K.D. RANJAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3046/DEL./2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2001-02) VISHAL JINDAL VS. ITO WARD 20(3) F-5/4 MODEL TOWN NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN/GIR NO.AALPJ5289H) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VED JAIN CA. REVENUE BY : SHRI R.S. NEGI SR.DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A)- XXII NEW DELHI 15.03.2011 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WHEREIN SINGLE GROUND ABOUT CONFIRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.81 028/- O N ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. 2. THE FACTS IN THIS CASE ARE THAT ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 WERE COMPLETED ON 29.03.2004 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.4 12 790/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.2 34 490/-. AN ADDITION OF RS.81 028/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FOREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES OF S HRI M.L. JINDAL FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED IN FIRST APPEAL. THE HONBLE ITAT DELHI VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.07.2007 SET ASIDE THE SAID ISSUE TO THE F ILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION OF THE THE MOTIVE OBJECTIVE AND THE P URPOSE OF THE IMPUGNED FOREIGN TOUR UNDERTAKEN BY HIS FATHER. I.T.A. NO.3046/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 2001-02) 2 3. IN THE SET ASIDE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 02.04.2008 25.09.2008 AND 22.10.2008. T HERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE ON ANY OF THE DATES OF HEARING. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO SUBMISSIONS TO MAKE ON THE MATTER DISALLOWED THE F OREIGN TRAVEL EXPENSES OF RS.81 028/- AND ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.3 31 287/-. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAVE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND AN APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE AMOUNT OF RS.81 028/- WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY OPPORTU NITY TO THE ASSESSEE. SO HE WAS PREVENTED FOR SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM NOT FURNISHING EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE SAME SHOULD BE ADMITTED. 5. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SENT SUCH ADDITION AL EVIDENCE FILED IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATION AND REBUTTAL AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE REMAND REPORT DATED 17.01.2011 HAS SUB MITTED THAT A LETTER DATED 13.11.2010 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE SUPPORTING DOCUM ENTS AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR 9.12.2010. HOWEVER NO RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED. SO ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT ADDITION MADE REQUIRED TO BE CONFIRMED. 6. IN REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT LD.AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 9.12.2010. HOWEVER SHE WAS BUSY ON ACCOUNT OF TIME BARRING MATTERS AND ASKED HIM TO ATTEND IN JANUARY 2011. THEREAFTER REMAND REPORT WAS SENT WITHOUT GIVING HIM ANY FURTHER OPPO RTUNITY. IT WAS ARGUED THAT DOCUMENTS FILED NAMELY COPY OF TICKETS COPY OF PA SSPORT DETAILS OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE I.T.A. NO.3046/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 2001-02) 3 PURCHASED LIST OF PARTIES CONTACTED FOR BUSINESS M EETINGS COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS DONE WITH THE SAID PARTIES ETC. REVEALED THAT THE VISIT WAS ENTIRELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. BUT CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER A REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER RELEVANT MATERIAL AND PROCEEDED TO REJECT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. AGAINST SUCH ORDER OF CIT(A) ASSESSEE HAS COME IN FURTHER APPEAL AND IT WAS STRONGLY PLEADED THAT ASSESSEE NOT ONLY ATTENDED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPONSE TO HIS NOTICE ON RECEIPT OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FRO M CIT(A) BUT HE WAS ASKED TO COME IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY AS HE IS BUSY IN TIME BARRING MATTERS AND THEREAFTER NO FURTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN. HENCE REASONABLE OPPORTUNI TY HAS BEEN DENIED TO THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IT WAS THUS PRAYED THAT IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TO HAVE FAIR PLAY IN THE MATTER ORDER OF CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER BE RESTORED BACK ON HIS FILE TO RECONSIDER T HE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 8. LD.DR STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF CIT(A) A ND PLEADED THAT DESPITE FILING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN SUCH ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS SENT TO THE AS SESSING OFFICER WHO SOUGHT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE SENDING THE REMA ND REPORT. CIT(A) HAS JUSTIFIABLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISS ION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND PASSED APPROPRIATE ORDER ON MERIT WHICH SHOULD BE UPHELD A ND THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHE D IN THE PAPER BOOK FILED. IT IS NOT I.T.A. NO.3046/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 2001-02) 4 IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED FRESH EVIDEN CE BEFORE CIT(A) AND APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ALONG WITH CERTAIN FRESH DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO SOUGHT REMAND REPORT FORM TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT AND REPLY OF THE ASSE SSEE CIT(A) CONCLUDED TO REFUSE THE ADMISSION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE MAINLY ON THE GRO UND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER GAVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT AVAILED BY HIM SINCE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN SOME REASONS FOR NOT APPEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AS HE WAS GIVEN ORAL DATE. SO IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TO HAVE A FAIR PLAY IN THE MATTER WE FIND IT JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND RESTORE THE MA TTER BACK ON HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE-DECIDE THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS TO THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND PASS FRESH ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 10. AS A RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE GETS A CCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON CLOSURE OF THE H EARING ITSELF ON 23.02.2012. SD/- SD/- (K.D. RANJAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : FEBRUARY 23 2012 SKB COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXII NEW DELHI. 5. CIT(ITAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR ITAT I.T.A. NO.3046/DEL./2011 (A.Y. : 2001-02) 5