Dr. Vivek G. Bhartu, Mumbai vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. Asst. year CIT(A) Dt. Of CIT(A)
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal set aside the orders of the CIT(A) and restored the matters to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication, on the footing that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause from furnishing the evidence before the Assessing Officer or the CIT(A), and that the contents of the supporting affidavit had not been controverted by the Revenue. Where an assessee, on account of reasonable cause, has been prevented from placing evidence before the lower authorities, and that cause is supported by an affidavit whose contents the Revenue does not dispute, the appellate authority may admit the evidence and restore the matter to the Assessing Officer for de novo adjudication rather than decide the appeal on the record as it stood.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
ITAs No. : 909 to 914/Mum/2012 (Assessment years: 2003-04 to 2008-09) Dr. Vivek G Bhartu, Vs Income Tax Officer 7(3)(1), 101, 764E Umrigar Building, Aayakar Bhavan, Queens Road, Tilak Road, Parsee Colony, Marine Line, Dadar, Mumbai -400 014 Mumbai -400 023 ःथयी लेखा सं.:PAN: AACPB 7638 P अपीलाथȸ (Appellant) ू×यथȸ (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Pradeep Kapsi Respondent by : Shri Pavan Kumar Beerla
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख /Date of Hearing : 14-01-2015 घोषणा कȧ तारȣख /Date of Pronouncement : 21-01-2015
आदेश ORDER ᮰ी िववेक वमाᭅ, ᭠या स: स: PER VIVEK VARMA, JM:
The following appeals have been filed by the assessee:
Sr. ITA No. Asst. year CIT(A) Dt. Of CIT(A) No. order 1 909/M/2012 2003-04 13 22.09.2011 2 910/M/2012 2004-05 13 22.09.2011 3 911/M/2012 2005-06 13 22.09.2011 4 912/M/2012 2006-07 13 22.09.2011 5 913/M/2012 2007-08 13 22.09.2011 6 914/M/2012 2008-09 13 22.09.2011
2. At the time of hearing the AR submitted that due to ill health of the assessee he could not furnish the evidences before the CIT(A), which he has placed before us along with an affidavit giving reasons and importance of the evidences to be considered.
2 Dr. Vivek G Bhartu ITAs No. 909 to 914/M/2012
3. The AR submitted that since the evidence is being placed now, the assessee be allowed to represent the cases properly before the revenue authorities.
4. The DR did not object for readjudication of the cases.
5. After hearing the AR and going through the Affidavit dated 23.07.2014, wherein point no. 4 reads as, "That I was prevented by reasonable cause in not furnishing the aforesaid evidences before the Assessing Officer or CIT(A)", we feel that another opportunity may be given to the assessee, since the contents of the affidavit have not been controverted.
6. We, therefore, set aside the orders of the CIT(A) in all the above cases impugned before us and restore the same to the file of the AO for fresh and de novo adjudication.
7. The appeals, as filed are treated as allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 21st January, 2015.
Sd/- Sd/- आर. आर. सी. (आर सी. शमाᭅ) िववेक वमाᭅ) (िववे लेखा सदःय Ûयाईक सदःय (R.C. SHARMA) (VIVEK VARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, Date: 21st January, 2015
ूित/Copy to:-
1) अपीलाथȸ /The Appellant.
2) ू×यथȸ /The Respondent.
3) The CIT(A) -13, Mumbai.
4) The CIT- 7, Mumbai/CIT - 7, Mumbai.
5) ǒवभागीय ूितिनिध "एफ़", आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुब ं ई/ The D.R. "F" Bench, Mumbai.
3 Dr. Vivek G Bhartu ITAs No. 909 to 914/M/2012
6) गाड[ फाईल Copy to Guard File.
आदे शानुसार/By Order / / True Copy / /
उप/सहायक पंजीकार आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, मुबं ई Dy./Asstt. Registrar I.T.A.T., Mumbai
*च᭪हान व.िन.स *Chavan, Sr.PS
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free