SHRI RUPESH ASHOKKUMAR RAVAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-9(1), AHMEDABAD

By way of this appeal, the assessee appellant has challenged correctness of the order dated 21st February 2013, passed by the learned CIT(A), Ahmedabad, in the matter of assessment under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ hereinafter) for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. The solitary substantial grievance of the assessee is that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.15,33,778/- which was added by the Assessing Officer under section 68 of the I.T. Act.

The assessee has filed an application under Rule 29 of ITAT rules for permission to produce additional evidence. It is put in the application that addition on account of unexplained cash credit in respect of different parties were made because the assessee could not produce separate evidence. It has been further pointed out that in the case of Ramanbhai of Vapi the assessee could not collect the details because he was out of India at the relevant time. Similarly, in the case of Kala Infrastructure, the party did not co-operate at the time of assessment proceedings. However, when the penalty proceedings were commenced the party has given the details and co-operated with the assessee. These details were submitted during the penalty proceedings. Assessee sought to produce page 1 – 18 placed in the paper book.

We have heard the rival submissions, perused the material on record and duly considered facts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. A bare perusal of Rule 29 of ITAT Rules would indicate that parties to the appeal are not entitled to produce additional evidence either oral or documentary before the Tribunal, but if the Tribunal requires any documents to be produced or any witness to be examined to enable it to pass orders, then the party should be permitted to adduce additional evidence. A perusal of the assessment order would indicate that notice under section 143(2) of the I.T. Act was issued on 25.08.2010. Thereafter assessment proceedings were dormant almost about 8 months. The Assessing Officer has started effecting investigation of the facts vide show cause notice dated 04.11.2011. He passed the assessment order on 19.12.2011. Looking to these circumstances, it emerges that roughly two to three months were devoted for carrying out the investigation. Some time it is quite difficult for an assessee to collect all the details and compile them. This time laps of two to three months for submitting complete details after obtaining from various parties or financial institutions is not sufficient. Therefore, we allow application for admission of additional evidence and set aside the orders of revenue authorities below. We restore the issue regarding addition of Rs.15,33,778/- representing five parties (extracted supra) to the file of Assessing Officer. The assessee will be at liberty to submit any other details in support of his explanation. The observations made by us will not impair or injure the case of the Assessing Officer and will not cause any prejudice to the defense or explanations of the assessee.