Saransh Jain Trust, vs Department Of Income Tax
- CitationITA NO.3890/Del/2007
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where the assessing authority and the first appellate authority have not called upon the assessee to produce evidence that goes to the root of the case and is material to the issues in dispute, the Tribunal may admit such additional evidence, and the issues are to be remitted de novo to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication after giving the assessee full opportunity of being heard, rather than decided on the merits by the Tribunal itself.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Department by : Sh. B.R.R. KUMAR, SR. DR Assessee by : Sh. SALIL KAPPOR, ADV.
Date of Hearing : 27-04-2015 Date of Order : 27-04-2015
ORDER
PER H.S. SIDHU : JM This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi dated 23.05.2007 pertaining to assessment year 2003-04 on the following grounds:-
"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- made on account of undisclosed income declared in the guise of Gift".
The appellant craves leave for reserving the right to amend, modify, alter, add or forego any ground(s) of
1 ITA NO.3890/Del/2007
appeal at any time before or during the hearing of this appeal.
2. At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee stated that
the assessee has filed the Application under Rule 29 of the Income
Tax Tribunal Rules for admission of additional evidence vide
Application dated 08.08.2013. He requested that the additional
evidences mentioned in the Application may be admitted and the
case of the assessee may be decided on merits.
3. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the AO
and opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee for
admission of additional evidences.
4. We have heard both the parties and perused the relevant
records available with us, especially the orders passed by the
Revenue Authority alongwith the contention raised by the assessee
in the Application for admission of additional evidence as well as
small Paper Book containing pages 1 to 71 having the copy of From
No. 36 alongwith the grounds; copy of CIT(A) order dated 23.5.2007;
copy of Form NO. 35; copy of assessment order u/s. 148/143(3)
dated 22.7.2004; copy of notice u/s. 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated
22.7.04; copy of the reasons recorded in AY 2003-04; copy of the
submission filed by the assessee before the Ld. CIT(A); copy of
additional synopsis; copy of gift deed of Sh. Qayyum Khan &
Chuttan Khan; copy of affidavit of Sh. Qayyum Khan; copy of pass 2 ITA NO.3890/Del/2007
book; copy of income tax returns; copy of the ITAT Order dated
15.10.2004 in case of Jai Narain Maheshwari, HUF vs. Qayyuim
Khan. etc. We find that Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted
that the additional evidences before the Tribunal which were never
filed with the lower authorities, since neither the AO nor the CIT(A)
asked the assessee to produce the evidences during the course of
assessment proceedings and appellate proceedings. We are of the
view that the AO has completed the assessment u/s. 148/143(3) of
the I.T. Act, 1961 on 28.2.2006 and made the additions in dispute.
In view of the above, we are not commenting upon the merit of the
case and on the additional evidences filed by the assessee. We are
of the considered view that the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has not
asked the assessee to file those evidences which goes to the root of
the case and which is very helpful to decide the issues in dispute, as
per law, which needs to be considered at the level of the AO.
4.1 Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the present
case and the additional evidences filed by the assessee, we are of
the view that the additional evidences filed by the assessee is
required to be adjudicated at the level of the AO, because it will
goes to the root of the case and is very helpful to decide the issues,
in dispute, as per law. In the interest of justice, the issues in dispute
are set aside de novo to the AO to decide the same afresh, under
the law, after giving full opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
3
ITA NO.3890/Del/2007
5. In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed
for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 27/04/2015.
Sd/- Sd/-
[N.K. SAINI] [H.S. SIDHU] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Date 27/04/2015 "SRBHATNAGAR" Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order,
Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches
4 ITA NO.3890/Del/2007
5
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