Jharkhand High Court
Ravi Sinha vs Dy Commissioner Of Income Tax on 8 February, 2016
Author: D.N. Patel
Bench: D. N. Patel
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Tax Appeal No. 1 of 2014
Ravi Sinha, S/o Late S.B. Sinha, resident of Saket, Kilburn Colony, P.O. Hinoo,
P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi ... Appellant
Versus
Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle1, 7th Floor, Mahavir Tower,
Main Road, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O. Ranchi and P.S. Hindpiri, District Ranchi
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D. N. PATEL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAV K. GUPTA
For the Appellant : Mr. Biren Poddar, Sr. Advocate
For the Respondent : Mr. Deepak Roshan, Advocate
18/ Dated: 8 February, 2016
th
Oral Order
Per D.N. Patel, J.:
1.This appeal is Admitted for the following substantial questions of law, which have been raised in this appeal:
"(1) Whether the directions given by the ITAT in its earlier order, to provide the materials which the Assessing Officer intends to use against the assessee for making additions and to provide the statements unilaterally recorded by third parties on the basis of which addition was made, for his explanation and rebuttal, were binding on the Assessing Officer and no addition could have been made to the total income of the assessee without complying with the aforesaid binding directions?
(2) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, Learned ITAT was justified in law in confirming addition under the head "Illegal gratification money received from the bogus suppliers of Animal Husbandry Department" on the basis of one sided unilaterally recorded statements behind the back of the Appellant assessee, of five different third parties/assessee, without there being any corroborative evidence on record, without giving copies of the same to the Appellant for rebuttal or examination to the appellant and just by relying on the unilateral statements recorded of some third parties?
(3) Whether the order passed by learned ITAT, being final fact finding body, was perverse in law in not taking into consideration the fact that the Appellant assessee retired from the aforesaid Government service on 31.12.1994, prior to the relevant Assessment Year 2 199697 (relating to financial year 01.04.1995 to 31.03.1996) and was continuously bed ridden during the year under consideration due to kidney failure and could not have permitted the withdrawal of the money against bogus supply and could not have received any gratification?
(4) Whether ITAT the finding recorded by ITAT that the Appellant was a Joint Director of Animal Husbandry Department and without his consent, no such fodder scam could take place is perverse under the fact that admittedly much prior to the year under consideration the Appellant had retired from the service on 31.12.1994 and was admittedly under medical confinement and undergoing kidney failure treatment and at various places?
(5) Whether it is incumbent upon the learned ITAT to record cogent reasons for confirming the findings recorded by the Assessing Officer and the findings by the CIT(A) and in the absence of that whether the Learned ITAT was justified in law to just arrive at a biased conclusion that the case is related to fodder scam and confirmed the addition without taking into cognizance that no evidence what to say about conclusive evidence, whatsoever, was brought on record?
(6) Whether the Learned ITAT has failed to appreciate the legal proposition and settled law that no material or evidence unilaterally collected behind the back of the Appellant assessee should be used against a person without allowing him an opportunity for rebuttal?"
2. This appeal will be listed for its final hearing on 4th April, 2016.
(D.N. Patel, J.) (Amitav K. Gupta, J.) Ajay/