SH. RAVINDER SINGH THAKUR,SHIMLA vs. DCIT/ACIT (CENTRAL), SHIMLA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 168/CHANDI/2023Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 May 2024AY 2018-19Bench: SHRI A.D. JAIN (Vice President), DR KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)4 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the acceptance of additional evidence, noting that while the assessee should have filed them earlier, it was in the interest of justice. The case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 22.99 lacs made under Section 69 and taxed under Section 115BBE. The assessee sought to submit additional evidence, including bank statements and expenditure details, which were not filed before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether additional evidence, not filed before lower authorities, should be admitted by the ITAT. The propriety of additions made under Section 69 and taxation under Section 115BBE.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘B’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI A.D. JAIN & DR KRINWANT SAHAY

For Appellant: CA राजव क ओर से/
For Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT Sr. DR
Hearing: 30.04.2024Pronounced: 01.05.2024

आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

1.

The appeal in this case has been filed against the order dated 27.01.2023 of the ld. CIT(A)-3, Gurgaon.

2.

The effective Ground of appeal raised by the Assessee is as under: -

168-Chd-2023 – Ravinder Singh Thakur, Shimla 2 “1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) is not justified in upholding the addition of Rs. 22.99 lacs under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thereby subjecting the sum for taxation under section 115BBE. The addition is not sustainable in the eyes of law.”

3.

During the course of hearing, the ld. Counsel for the Assessee filed a letter dated 15.4.2024, which is application for placing Additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules. The relevant portion of the letter is as under: -

“1. That by means of this application, the applicant seeks indulgence of this Hon'ble Tribunal for placing on record the following documents: - a) Copy of saving account of Mr. Ravinder Singh Thakur with SBI bearing A/c No. 30550796805; b) Copy of saving account of Mr. Ravinder Singh Thakur with Yes Bank bearing A/c No. 9192000011416; c) Copy of saving account of Mr. Ravinder Singh Thakur with SBI bearing A/c No. 31168958531; d) Copy of saving account of Mr. Ravinder Singh Thakur with Uco bank bearing A/c No. 12550100005999; e) Copy of Term Loan account in the name of Mr. Ravinder Singh Thakur with SBI bearing account no. 32237557272; and 168-Chd-2023 – Ravinder Singh Thakur, Shimla 3 f) Detail of year wise expenditure and source of finance.

2. That the aforesaid documents could not be placed on record during the assessment proceedings as the same were never asked for by the learned Assessing Officer. However, the same goes to the root of the case. Therefore, the applicant prays permission of this Hon'ble Tribunal to place on record the same.

4.

In the second part of this letter it has been mentioned that these additional evidence / documents were not filed before the authorities below because the same were never asked for by the Assessing Officer. We are of the view that this contention of the Assessee is not correct because it is not for the Assessing Officer to ask for supporting evidence but it is the duty of the Assessee to file necessary documents in support of his / its claim during the assessment proceedings.

5.

However, we have considered the application of the Assessee and we find that most of the documents filed as ‘additional evidence’ are copies of the bank statements which cannot be tampered with by the Assessee in post-assessment period.

6.

The ld. DR did not object to the acceptance of this additional evidence.

7.

We find that although the Assessee should have placed these documents before the authorities below, however, in the interest of 168-Chd-2023 – Ravinder Singh Thakur, Shimla 4 justice we allow the additional evidence be accepted and remanding it back to the file of the Assessing Officer for adjudication afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Assessee.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 01.5.2024.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →