Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC
Before: SHRI BHAGCHANDvk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 50/JP/2017
आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES (SMC), JAIPUR Jh Hkkxpan] ys[kk lnL;] ds le{k BEFORE: SHRI BHAGCHAND, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 50/JP/2017 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 cuke Anoop Dattray Naidu, D.C.I.T., Vs. A-1503, Twins Tower, CHS, Circle-1, Sectory-20, behind Jalvayu Jaipur. Vihar, Khar Ghar, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra- 410210. LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ABTPN 1958 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Shri Anil Bhandari (CA) jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Shri Rajendra Singh (JCIT) lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@ Date of Hearing : 24/05/2017 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@ Date of Pronouncement : 24/05/2017 vkns'k@ ORDER
PER: BHAGCHAND, A.M.
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated
14/10/2016 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-I, Jaipur for the A.Y. 2010-11,
wherein the assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “1. Under The facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT (Appeals)-l, Jaipur has erred in Law as well as in facts by conforming the assessment made by the learned Assessing Officer U/S 147 of The Income Tax Act 1961. The action of learned CIT (Appeals)-l, Jaipur is
ITA 50/JP/2017_ 2 Anoop Dattray Naidu Vs DCIT
illegal, unjustified, arbitrary, and against the facts of the case and against the law.
Under The facts and circumstance of the case the learned CIT (Appeals)-l, Jaipur has erred in Law as well as in facts by conforming the assessment made by learned Assessing Officer solely on the basis of 26AS instead of Form No.16 .The reasonable opportunity was not given to the appellant before conforming the assessment made by the learned Assessing officer. The action of learned CIT (Appeals)-l, Jaipur is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary, and against the facts of the case and against the law.
Under the facts and circumstance of the case and in Law the learned CIT (Appeals)-l, Jaipur has erred by making addition of Rs 492040 U/S 69 of The Income Tax Act 1961 for payment of stamp duty and other expenses without giving the reasonable opportunity to the appellant. The action of learned CIT (Appeals)-l, Jaipur is illegal, unjustified, arbitrary and against the facts of the case. Relief may please be granted by deleting the said addition of Rs 492040.”
At the outset of hearing, the ld counsel of the assessee has
submitted that certain additional evidences, which he could not produce
before the authorities below for the reason that the bank from where
these documents obtained, did not provide to the assessee in time. As the
assessee is residing in the State of Maharashtra and the case was selected
for scrutiny at Jaipur. The representative of the assessee asked various
information but since it was an old case and the assessee was located at
different geographical location in India. The assessee requested to the
Assessing Officer to provide some time to obtain necessary
papers/information. During the relevant period, the assessee was serving
ITA 50/JP/2017_ 3 Anoop Dattray Naidu Vs DCIT
two companies namely “Loop Telecom Limited” at New Delhi and “ZTE
Telecom India Pvt. Ltd.” at Navi Mumbai. Loop Telecom Limited was under
investigation by the government authorities and the records of the
company were in the possession of government authorities. ZTE Telecom
India Pvt. Ltd. was controlled by the personnel of China and the local
people could not provide necessary information without the permission of
the parent company. In view of these facts, the assessee could not submit
necessary papers and not complied the direction of the Assessing Officer.
Since the assessee has now obtained necessary information/documents,
therefore, it is prayed that for the interest of justice, the issue may be
restored back to the file of the Assessing Officer after admitting the
additional evidences.
On the contrary, the ld. DR was not having any serious objection to
the proposition of the ld AR of the assessee.
After hearing both the sides on this issue and after considering the
facts and circumstances of the case, I admit additional evidences
submitted by the assessee and remand the issue to the file of the
Assessing Officer to be decided de novo.
ITA 50/JP/2017_ 4 Anoop Dattray Naidu Vs DCIT 5. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical
purposes only.
Order pronounced in the open court on 24/05/2017.
Sd/- ¼Hkkxpan½ (BHAGCHAND) ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:- 24th May, 2017 *Ranjan आदेश की प्रतिलिपि अग्रेf’ात@ब्वचल वf जीम वतकमत वितूंतकमक जवरू vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Shri Anoop Dattray Naidu, Navi Mumbai, 1. Maharashtra. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- The D.C.I.T., Circle-1, Jaipur. 2. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT 3. vk;dj vk;qDr¼vihy½@The CIT(A) 4. विभागीय प्रतिनिधि] आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर@क्त्ए प्ज्Aज्ए Jंपचनत 5. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File (ITA No. 50/JP/2017) 6. vkns'kkuqlkj@ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार@Aेेज. त्महपेजतंत