RAJESH NANDKUMAR AGARWAL,,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2(1),, PUNE

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे �यायपीठ “एक-सद�य मामला” पुणे म� IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.87/PUN/2018 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Rajesh Nandkumar Agarwal, Flat No.1170/15B, Yasholaxmi Apartment, Revenue Colony, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ� / Appellant PAN : AAVPA6808K बनाम / V/s. ITO, Ward- 2(1), ……��यथ� / Respondent Pune. आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.88/PUN/2018 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Nandkumar Maidhan Agarwal, Flat No.1170/15B, Yasholaxmi Apartment, Revenue Colony, Shivajinagar, Pune-411005. .......अपीलाथ� / Appellant PAN : AAVPA6807G बनाम / V/s. ITO, Ward- 2(1), ……��यथ� / Respondent Pune. Assessee by : Shri K. Srinivasan Revenue by : Shri Rajesh Gawali सुनवाई क� तारीख / Date of Hearing : 05.02.2019 घोषणा क� तारीख / Date of Pronouncement : 07.02.2019 आदेश / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM: There are two appeals under consideration and are filed by the two different assessees against the respective orders of CIT(A)-3, Pune dated

2 ITA Nos.87 & 88/PUN/2018 10.10.2017 and 11.10.2017 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. Since the facts and issues involved in both the appeals are common, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by this composite order. 2. Since the facts and issues are common in both the appeals, the appeal in ITA No.87/PUN/2018 (Rajesh Nandkumar Agarwal) taken as the lead case. ITA No.87/PUN/2018 (Rajesh Nandkumar Agarwal) 3. In this appeal, the effective ground raised by the assessee is as under :- “1. That the Learned C.I.T.(A)-3 has earned error in justification to confirm the addition of Rs.7,01,196/- made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Pune on account of Non genuine business expenses. The same may be allowed or reduced accordingly.” 4. Briefly, the relevant facts include that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 20.08.2013 declaring total income of Rs.16,20,330/-. The case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny. At the end of the assessment, the Assessing Officer calculated the total income of the assessee for the year under consideration and determined the total taxable income of Rs.23,70,013/- in the hands of the assessee. Aggrieved with the said action of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter before the First Appellate Authority. Before the CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the facts as made before the Assessing Officer. However, the CIT(A) did not satisfy with the submissions made before him and dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

3 ITA Nos.87 & 88/PUN/2018 6. At the outset, ld. Counsel for the assessee brought our attention to the Paper Book filed at the time of hearing of the appeal and submitted that the documents at page no.1 to 47 constitute additional evidences. The ld. Counsel submitted that the same could not be furnished at the time of assessment proceedings for a reasonable cause. The ld. Counsel further brought our attention to the prayer for admission of additional evidences. 7. On hearing both the sides on the preliminarily issue and admission of the additional evidences, we find the following paragraphs are relevant to extract and the same are extracted hereunder:- “The evidence at No.1 is essential for deciding the case as the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) have decided the issue mainly on the ground that these were not produced before him at the time of assessment. The file containing vouchers were misplaced and could not be located as the same were kept separately during renovation and construction work going on. The time given was very short and we could not locate the files. Further during appeal also time given was short and we could not locate as these were kept Mr. Nandkumar Agarwal assessee’s father and were all busy in treatment of assessee’s mother who ultimately succumbed and died in Dec. 2018.” 8. Considering the above reasons and the additional evidences i.e. bills and the English Translation of the Shop Act Licence, we find these additional evidences go to the root of the matter and the same is required for adjudication of the grounds of appeal. Accordingly, we admit the additional evidences. 9 Considering the principles of natural justice, we are of the opinion the additional evidences, so admitted by us, need to be remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to grant a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4 ITA Nos.87 & 88/PUN/2018 ITA No.88/PUN/2018 (Nandkumar Maidhan Agarwal) 10. In so far as, appeal of the assessee in ITA No.88/PUN/2018 for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the issue involved is identical, which we have already discussed and decided in ITA No.87/PUN/2018 and the issue remanded to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, therefore, our decision in ITA No.87/PUN/2018 shall apply mutatis-mutandis in this appeal i.e. ITA No.88/PUN/2018 also. Accordingly, ITA No.88/PUN/2018 for the assessment year 2012-13 is allowed for the statistical purposes. 11. In the result, both the appeals of the assessees are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 07th February, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 07th February, 2019 Sujeet आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 2. 3. The CIT(A)-3, Pune; 4. The Pr. CCIT, Pune; िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “एक-सद�य मामला” 5. / DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड� फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.