ACIT, CHENNAI v. Smt. Shyamala Reddy, CHENNAI

ITA 651/CHNY/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2010 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 65121714 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AMEPS9375G
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 651/CHNY/2010
Duration Of Justice 6 month(s) 26 day(s)
Appellant ACIT, CHENNAI
Respondent Smt. Shyamala Reddy, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 02-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 02-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 02-12-2010
Next Hearing Date 02-12-2010
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 07-05-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENCH A CHENNAI BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI J.M. & SHRI SANJAY ARORA A.M. I.TA. NO.651/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE V ANNEXE BUILDING 6 TH FLOOR 121 NUNGAMBAKKAM HIGH ROAD CHENNAI 600 034. VS. SMT. SHYAMALA REDDY PLOT NO. 598 ALAGIRISAMI SALAI K.K. NAGAR CHENNAI 600 078. [PAN:AMEPS9375G] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SHAJI P. JACOB ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR O R D E R PER U.B.S. BEDI J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIII CHENNAI DATED 19.02.2010 RELAVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08 WHEREBY THE DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS BASED ON FRESH EVIDENCE FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT A DHERING TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET THE LD. DR WHILE REFERRING TO GROUND NO.2.2 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS PLEADED THAT PROVISIONS OF RU LE 46A HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BEFORE ACCEPTING FRESH EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESS EE FOR THE FIRST TIME IN APPEAL PROCEEDING AND CONSIDERING THE SAME TO DELETE THE A DDITION. THEREFORE IT WAS PRAYED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A ) AND RESTORING THE MATTER BACK ON HIS FILE WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. TO THIS MOVE OF THE LD. DR LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT OBJECT BUT SUBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT FRESH EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN F ILED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. ITA NO. 651/MDS/10 651/MDS/10 651/MDS/10 651/MDS/10 2 AUTHORITY BUT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DULY CONSIDERED T HE SAME TO ALLOW RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AS WAS ALLOWABLE. THEREFORE THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD BE DISMISSED BUT IN CASE TRIBUNAL DECIDES TO SET ASI DE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK ON THE FILE OF T HE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH. 3. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES CONSIDERED THE MA TERIAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED FRESH EVIDENCE FIRST TI ME BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED AND CONSIDERED FOR ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADD ITION MADE IN RELATION TO THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WE DO NOT FIND THAT HE HAS COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES 1962 BEFORE ACCEPTING THE FRESH EVIDENCE AND CONSIDERING THE SAME. THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND TO HAVE FAIR PLAY IN THE MA TTER WE FIND IT JUST AND APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AU THORITIES IN THIS REGARD AND RESTORE THE MATTER BACK ON THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THIS ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNI TY TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 4. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS ACCEPTED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED SOON AFTER THE CONCLUSION OF HEAR ING ON 02.12.2010. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 02.12.2010. VM/- COPY TO : APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT(A)- /CIT /DR