ITO, CHENNAI v. Smt. Rajalakshmi Ashok, CHENNAI

ITA 846/CHNY/2010 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 19-01-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 84621714 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN AGMPA8834A
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 846/CHNY/2010
Duration Of Justice 7 month(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant ITO, CHENNAI
Respondent Smt. Rajalakshmi Ashok, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 19-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 19-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 11-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 11-01-2011
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 02-06-2010
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH B : CHENNAI [BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A NO. 846/MDS/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 THE ITO WARD IV(1) CHENNAI VS SMT RAJALAKSHMI ASHOK NO.8/1 KAILASH GROUND FLOOR THIRUVENGADAM STREET WEST MAMBALAM CHENNAI 600 033 [PAN AGMPA8834A] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.B. SEKARAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007-08 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-VIII CHENNAI DATED 19.03.2010. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) WAS PASSED IN THIS CASE ON 29.12.2009 IN WHICH ADDITION OF ` 18 30 000/- WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CAS H DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THIS MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) . SCRUTINY OF THIS ASSESSMENT WAS UNDERTAKEN DUE TO AIR INFORMATION W HEREBY IT WAS ITA 846/10 :- 2 -: REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED ` 55 LAKHS IN RBI BONDS. THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND WAS WORKING AS VICE-PRESIDENT IN A REPUTED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COMPANY NAMELY M/S HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. HE SUDDENLY EXPIRED AND ON HIS DEATH THE ASS ESSEE RECEIVED FOLLOWING SUMS WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE: AMOUNT FROM HEXAWARE TECHNOLOGIES LTD. A LEADING IT COMPANY WHERE THE APPELLANTS HUSBAND WORKED AS VICE- PRESIDENT ` 23 36 297 AMOUNT FROM LIC ` 15 90 435 AMOUNT TRANSFERRED FROM ICICI ` 4 54 148 AMOUNT TRANSFERRED FROM IOB ADAMBAKKAM ` 2 90 000 AMOUNT FROM DEMAT A/C ` 34 06 056.68 TOTAL ` 80 73 936.68 3. THIS FACT WAS NOT APPRECIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE LD .AR PRODUCED XEROX COPIES OF PAPERS INCLUDING THE BANK ACCOUNT DETAIL S EVIDENCING RECEIPT OF THE TERMINAL BENEFITS BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS CONFIRMATION LETTER OBTAINED FROM SHRI VENKATARISHNAN FOR HAVING RECEIV ED A SUM OF ` 20 LAKHS AS LOAN FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR PURCHASE OF PR OPERTY ON FREE OF INTEREST AND RETURN OF SUCH LOAN IN INSTALLMENTS IN CASH TO THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE SAME COULD NOT BE MATERIALIZED. AGAINST THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA 846/10 :- 3 -: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(AP PEALS) IS OPPOSED TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION BA SED ON FRESH EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF ASSESSEES BROTHERS CONFIRMATION LETTER FILED FOR THE FIRST TIME. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE ENTI TLEMENT TO PRODUCE FRESH EVIDENCE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS BASED ON THE EXISTENCE OF FOUR EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES ENUMERATED IN RULE 46A(1) OF THE INCOME TAX RULE 1962. 2.2 THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT T HE EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES ENUMERATED IN RULE 46A(1) ARE ABSENT IN ASSESSEES CASE AND AS SUCH OUGHT TO HAVE REJECTED THE FRESH EVIDENCE. 2.3 THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SPITE OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE FRESH EVIDENCE WITHOUT ACCORDING OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WITHOUT CALLING FOR A REMAND REPORT. 3.1 THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT PRODUCTION O F OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT BEFORE TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ANY FRESH EVIDENCE AS PER RULE 46A(3) OF THE INCOME TAX RULE 1962. 3.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF LAW AND THE ACT OF THE LD . CIT(A) IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE . 4. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION WI THOUT VERIFYING THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS REGARDING THE PURPORTED REPAYMENT OF LOANS INC ASH REPLYING UPON THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE ADDUCED AT THE TIME OF HEARING IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER RESTORED. 4. IT WAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BY THE LD.DR THAT PROVISIO NS RULE 46A (1) HAVE BEEN VIOLATED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITHOUT CO MPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY REQUIREMENTS OF THE LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GIVEN RELIEF TO ITA 846/10 :- 4 -: THE ASSESSEE AFTER ENTERTAINING FRESH EVIDENCE FILE D BEFORE HIM WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD.AR HAS SUPPORTED THE APPELLATE ORDER. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD.DR THAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND INGREDIENTS OF RULE 46A(1) AR E NON-EXISTENT IN THIS CASE. HE ARGUED THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SPITE OF SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAVING BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) VARIOUS OTH ER PIECES OF EVIDENCE WERE FILED WHICH WERE ACCEPTED WITHOUT ADHERING TO THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A(3). THE RECORDS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSE E OBTAINED FROM ICICI AND IDBI BANKS FAIRLY ESTABLISH THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD GOT THE AMOUNT TRANSFERRED FROM DEMAT ACCOUNT OF HER HUSBAN D. IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GOT ENOUGH FUNDS TO GIVE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEES BROTHER AND RECEIVED BACK THE SAME. BUT THE LD. CI T(A) HAS PASSED HIS ORDER AFTER ENTERTAINING FRESH EVIDENCE FILED BEFOR E HIM FOR THE FIRST TIME AND WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. THEREFORE IT BECOMES MANDATORY FOR US TO RESTORE T HE ENTIRE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO THAT HE CAN VE RIFY THE FRESH EVIDENCE AND PASS THE ORDER AFTER ASCERTAINING THEI R TRUTH. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW AND RESTORE THIS APPEAL TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER WITH A DIRECTION ITA 846/10 :- 5 -: THAT HE SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 19.1 .2011. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19 TH JANUARY 2011 RD COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR