VIRENDRA KUMAR,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 2(4), MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3670/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 November 2018AY 2013-144 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The ITAT admitted the additional evidence filed by the assessee and set aside the issues to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The tribunal found the additional evidence essential for deciding the dispute.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition of Rs. 15,80,000 made by the AO. The assessee claimed the cash was deposited by one Sh. Mehmood Khan, but the CIT(A) rejected additional evidence filed by the assessee. The assessee then filed additional evidence before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence and whether the AO's addition was justified without considering the evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

The Assessee has filed the Appeal against the Order dated 15.3.2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), Meerut pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:-

1. That the assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 147 is illegal.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) had denied natural justice to the assessee, by not admitting/ entertaining the affidavit filed by the assessee, which was a crucial evidence relating to the addition made by the AO.

3. That with a view to impart justice, the Ld. CIT(A) should had asked the assessee to file a formal application u/s. 46A for admission of additional evidence.

4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.

15,80,000/-, which was made by the AO in the hands of the assessee by disbelieving the fact narrated by the assessee that Sh. Mehmood Khan has deposited the cash of Rs. 14,60,000/- in the bank account of the assessee for getting issued the BS/DD in favour of UP Small Industries Corporation for purchase of coal of Rs. 1,20,000/- deposited by M/s Meerut Brick Field where the assessee was employee for expenses of the firm.

5.

That the ld. CIT(A) had erred in not appreciating that simply because Sh. Mehmood Khan did not appear before the AO, no adverse inference can be drawn against the assessee. Note

The assessee craves leave to amend/ modify aforementioned grounds of appeal and / or to raise additional ground(s) of appeal, at any time prior to / during the course of appellate proceedings.

2.

The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee has stated that assessee has filed some additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A), but the same has been rejected on the ground that Assessee had not moved this additional evidences alongwith the Application u/R 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. Assessee has also filed some additional evidences before me with the Application dated 24.9.2018 under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of additional documents in which he has attached the copy of affidavit of sh. Kailash S/ o Shirdhar Jamunhee; Affidavit of Nasib Khan S/o sh. Jimidar Khan; Affidavit of Chatarpal S/o Sh. Lal Bahadur; Khata Khatauni bearing Sl. No. 00075 and 00005 in respect of agricultural land situated in Village / pargane Persohna (nanpara) Tehsil – Minipurva, Motipur, Behraich (UP) owned by Mahmood Khan; Pay slips, through which cash of Rs. 3,90,000/- on 10.110.2012 and Rs. 7,00,000/- on 10.11.2012 were deposited by Mahmood Khan in the bank account of the assessee in Gurgatta Branch (nehraich) of Allahabad bank; Affidavit of the assessee regarding soruce of obtaining two pay in slips (as referred above). Ld. Counsel for the asseseee stated that these additional evidences may be admitted and issues in dispute may be set aside to the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order of the authorities below, but have not raised any objection on the admission of additional evidence. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. In find that some additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A), but the same has been rejected on the ground that Assessee had not moved this additional evidences alongwith the Application u/R 46A of the I.T. Rules, 1962. But before me, the Assessee has also filed some additional evidences with the Application dated 24.9.2018 under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 for admission of additional documents in which he has attached the copy of affidavit of sh. Kailash S/ o Shirdhar Jamunhee; Affidavit of Nasib Khan S/o sh. Jimidar Khan; Affidavit of Chatarpal S/o Sh. Lal Bahadur; Khata Khatauni bearing Sl. No. 00075 and 00005 in respect of agricultural land situated in Village / pargane Persohna (Nanpara) Tehsil – Minipurva, Motipur, Behraich (UP) owned by Mahmood Khan; Pay slips, through which cash of Rs. 3,90,000/- on 10.110.2012 and Rs. 7,00,000/- on 10.11.2012 were deposited by Mahmood Khan in the bank account of the assessee in Gurgatta Branch (nehraich) of Allahabad bank; Affidavit of the assessee regarding source of obtaining two pay in slips (as referred above), which are very essential to adjudicate the issue in dispute. Hence, I admit the same and set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 05-11-2018.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →