ANOOP DATTRAY NAIDU,MUMBAI vs. DCIT, JAIPUR

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.

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.

the proposition of the ld AR of the assessee.

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