Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “E ” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD & SHRI RAMIT KOCHAR
सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing :11.08.2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement :07.09.2016 आदेश / O R D E R PER C.N. PRASAD, JM:
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-7, Mumbai dated 18.11.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal:
1). In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in rejecting admission of additional evidence and thereby erred in confirming the addition made by the A O. of Rs.16,81,428/-, being the cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account 2 2. Reasons given by the learned CIT (A) for rejecting admission of additional evidence and thereby erred in confirming the addition made by the A O. of Rs. 16,81,428/-, being the cash deposited by the assessee in his bank account, are wrong insufficient and contrary to the facts and evidence on record.
3 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming addition made by the A. O. of 16,81,428/ being cash deposited in the bank by the assessee.
4. Reasons given by the learned CIT(A) for confirming addition by the A. O. of Rs. 16,81,428/ being cash deposited in the bank by the assessee, are wrong insufficient and contrary to the facts and evidence on record”.
It could be seen from the grounds of appeal the preliminary objection of the assessee is that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in rejecting the admission of additional evidence and confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer in respect of cash deposits.
3.1. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the additional evidences furnished by the assessee in respect of the cash deposits made into the bank account was rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) by observing that reasonable opportunity was given to the assessee by the Assessing Officer to furnish evidences in support of its claim. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that since the assessee was given reasonable opportunities, the additional evidences furnished at the time of appellate proceedings should not be admitted. Referring to para-4 of the Ld. CIT(A), the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that assessee has furnished the reasons as to why he could not produce the evidences before the Assessing Officer. the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that without appreciating the submission of the assessee the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the additional evidences stating 3 that sufficient opportunity was given to assessee by the Assessing Officer, as to why he could not furnish the additional evidences. Therefore, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to admit the additional evidences furnished by the assessee and dispose of the appeal on merit.
The Ld. Departmental Representative has no serious objection in sending back the file to the Ld. CIT(A).
On a perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) we find that the additional evidences were not admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) primarily the reason that the Assessing Officer has given reasonable opportunity to the assessee to produce evidences in support of his claims regarding the sources for deposits of cash in his back account. The assessee before the Ld. CIT(A) submitted the reasons as to why he could not furnish the evidences in time before the Assessing Officer and this was also taken note of the Ld. CIT(A), but he did not consider the same. The submissions of the assessee for not furnishing the evidences as recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) are as under:
Shri S.R. Nair, C.A. and The Ld. Counsel for the assessee of the appellant submitted that during the assessment proceedings, the assessee’s son has suffered burn injury and admitted to National Burn Centre-Airoli on 15.11.2010. He was in hospital for 30 days. He was not in a mental frame of mind to concentrate on income tax proceedings and hence could not give paper in time. It was submitted that the said property was sold by assessee’s father to Mr. Bhau C. Waman for a consideration of Rs. 9,50,000/- and to Mr. Suresh A. Gawde for a consideration of Rs. 7,50,000/-. The said amount was deposited by the assessee’s father into assessee’s bank account No. SB 57408 for further purchase of residential property jointly with assessee. The Ld. 4 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee filed a copy of medical papers and sale agreement of both the properties and it was finally stated that the assessee was prevented from sufficient cause to produce the required evidence as it took some time to collect all the evidences
We find the reasons furnished by the assessee are just and reasonable for not furnishing the information before the Assessing Officer in the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, we direct the Ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional evidences and dispose of the appeal on merits. Thus, we restore this appeal to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) who shall dispose of the issues on merits in accordance with law after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 7th September, 2016. (RAMIT KOCHAR) (C.N. PRASAD ) लेखा सद"य / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER मुंबई Mumbai; "दनांक Dated 7th September, 2016 व."न.स./ Rj , Sr. PS