I.T.O. Ward 8(1) Pune, Pune v. Choudhari Abdul Samad Nawabali, Raigad

ITA 376/PUN/2009 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 37624514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AARPC2458F
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 376/PUN/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 11 day(s)
Appellant I.T.O. Ward 8(1) Pune, Pune
Respondent Choudhari Abdul Samad Nawabali, Raigad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-08-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted Not Allotted
Tribunal Order Date 31-08-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 20-03-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR JM AND SHRI R.C. SHARMA AM I.T.A. NO. 376/PN/2009: 2003-04 I.T.O. WARD 8(1) PUNE APPELLANT VS. CHOUDHARI ABDUL SAMAD NAWABALI PLOT NO. 9 MIDC ROAD MORWADI PIMPRI PUNE-411 018 PAN AARPC 2458 F RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. MANJU AJWANI RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S.N. DOSHI ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR JM THE REVENUE HAS QUESTIONED THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE GROUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT O F CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLES. 2. IN SUPPORT OF THE GROUND THE LEARNED DR SUBMITT ED THAT DESPITE SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT BEFORE THE A.O. THUS THE LEAR NED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING SUCH DOCUMENTS FILED BEFORE HIM BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE CLA IMS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLES AN D TO ALLOW THE SAME. THE LEARNED DR IN THIS REGARD PLACED RELI ANCE ON THE ITA NO. 376/PN/2009 CHOUDHARI ABDUL SAMAD NAWABALI A.Y. 2003-04 2 DECISION IN THE CASES OF SIMPLEX ENTERPRISE AND OTH ERS VS. UNION OF INDIA 178 CTR 511 (BOM) AND FAIRDEAL FILAM ENTS VS. CIT (2008) 302 ITR 173 (GUJ). THE LEARNED AR ON TH E OTHER HAND TRIED TO JUSTIFY THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER WIT H THE SUBMISSION THAT REASONS WERE SHOWN BEFORE THE LEARN ED CIT(A) FOR NOT FILING THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE CLAIM S MADE BEFORE THE A.O. AND AFTER BEING CONVINCED WITH THESE REASO NS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SOUGHT REPORT OF THE A.O ON THOSE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND HAS ALLOWED THE CLAIMS. THUS THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RULE 46 -A OF THE INCOME-TAX RULES. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DR HAVING DISTINGUISHABLE FACTS ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THE PRESENT CASE. HE ALSO PLACED REL IANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F SMT. PRABHAVATI S. SHAH VS. CIT (1998) 231 ITR 1 (BOM) H OLDING THAT RESTRICTION PLACED ON PRODUCTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT AFFECT THE POWERS OF AAC TO CALL FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENT FOR EXAMINATION OF WITNESS T O ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OFF THE APPEAL. 3. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS IN VIEW OF THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) REQUESTED TO ALLOW THE DOCUMENTS FIL ED BEFORE HIM AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR CONSIDERATION OF GEN UINENESS OF CLAIMS MADE BY IT ON THE BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT ITA NO. 376/PN/2009 CHOUDHARI ABDUL SAMAD NAWABALI A.Y. 2003-04 3 PRODUCE THOSE DOCUMENTS IN EVIDENCE BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON ACCOUNT OF GENUINE IN ABILITY AND DIFFICULTY ON THE PART OF ITS CHARTERED ACCOUNT ANT WHO WAS HAVING MILD HEART ATTACK AND WAS ADVISED TO TAKE RE ST BY THE DOCTOR DURING THE PERIOD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DU E TOT THIS REASON THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED TO FILE NECESSARY DETAILS/EVIDENCE BEFORE THE A.O. THE LEARNED CIT(A ) ACCORDINGLY ADMITTED THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FOR H IS CONSIDERATION AND REQUIRED THE A.O TO VERIFY THE CL AIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF THOSE EVIDENCE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE A.O SUBMITTED HIS REPORT WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODU CED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AT PAGE NO. 3 I.E. REGARDING AGR ICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED AND AT PAGE NO. 6 I.E. REGARDING CLA IM OF DEPRECIATION ON VEHICLES. THE A.O IN HIS REPORT HA S STATED IN HIS CONCLUDING SENTENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PRODU CED ALL THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED AND THE DEPRECIATION ALLOWABLE COMES TO RS. 1 49 352/- WHICH IS ADMISSIB LE TO THE ASSESSEE ON VEHICLES. ON THE BASIS OF THIS REPORT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE REMAIN ED NO REASON TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION OF RS. 6 38 730/- MA DE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED AND H AS ALSO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 1 49 352/-. THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER IS REASONED ONE HENCE WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE THEREWITH. THE LE ARNED CIT(A) AS DISCUSSED HAS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE A.O T O REPORT ON ITA NO. 376/PN/2009 CHOUDHARI ABDUL SAMAD NAWABALI A.Y. 2003-04 4 THIS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND HAS BASED UPON THAT RE PORT FOR HIS CONCLUSION ON THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM. TH E FIRST APPELLATE ORDER IS THUS UPHELD. THE GROUND IS ACCO RDINGLY REJECTED. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST AUGUST 2010. SD/- SD/- (R.C. SHARMA) (I.C. SUDHIR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 31 ST AUGUST 2010 ANKAM COPY FORWARDED TO: (1) ASSESSEE (2) DEPARTMENT (3) CIT- (A) III PUNE (4) CIT IV PUNE (5) THE D.R. B BENCH PUNE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES PUNE