Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 2, Cited by 0]

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Indore

Chandravadani Mahila Shikha Samiti, ... vs Assessee

                              1



IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
         INDORE BENCH, INDORE

 BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                      And
    SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                 ITA Nos.31 and 32/Ind/2012
                  A.Ys.2001-02 and 2002-03


M/s Chandravadani Mahila Shiksha Samiti
Bhopal
PAN - AAATC 2617H                               ::   Appellant

Vs
Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax
3(1), Bhopal                                    ::   Respondent


      Appellant by                Shri R.N. Gupta
      Respondent by               Shri Keshav Saxena


      Date of hearing             16.04.2012
      Date of pronouncement        16.04.2012


                        O R D E R

PER JOGINDER SINGH , judicial member

The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned orders dated 3.10.2011 for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, raising identical grounds. The assessee has challenged the validity of notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and sustenance of 2 addition of Rs.96,30,000/- and Rs. 91,13,110/-, respectively, made u/s 68 of the Act, denial of depreciation, etc.

2. At the outset, our attention was invited to the application filed by the assessee for admission of additional evidence along with affidavits filed by the assessee. It was submitted that affidavits from the creditors, whose loan has been added as income of the assessee u/s 68, have filed their affidavits, therefore, these affidavits goes to the roots of the issue and are very much necessary to be examined so that the interest of the assessee is not geopardised for which the learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT v. Siya Daudi Bohra Jamat, Neemuch (2008) 10 ITJ 502 (MP) and the decision of the Tribunal in Globus Housing vs. CIT (2011) 17 ITJ 722 (Ind). These submissions of the assessee were objected by the learned CIT DR, Shri Keshav Saxena on the plea that firstly the confirmations, now filed before the Tribunal, were not filed during assessment stage and secondly the impugned amounts are from small agriculturists from whom lacs of rupees has been claimed as loan.

3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on file. Admittedly, the affidavits from the 3 creditors as mentioned in the applications were not filed by the assessee before the learned AO. Still the additional evidence filed before us simply cannot be brushed aside because the evidence filed before us which goes to the root of the controversy then the cause of substantial justice cannot be ignored, therefore, we accept the additional evidence filed before the Tribunal. Our view is fortified by the decision from Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Siya Daudi Bohra Samat (supra) wherein it was held that the Tribunal rightly remanded the matter after accepting the additional evidence. However, since the additional evidence has been filed for the first time before the Tribunal, the interest of revenue also has to be vouched, therefore, we remand both the file along with the additional evidence filed before us to the file of the learned AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee be provided sufficient opportunity of being heard by the AO. The assessee is directed to produce the creditors before the learned AO within one month from the receipt of this order for examination. It is made clear that if the creditors are not produced within the stipulated period then the learned AO is free to take its own decision. As the suspicion was raised by the learned CIT DR that 4 lacs of rupees or the impugned amounts by the respective creditors cannot be spared in the form of loan to the assessee, we direct that the AO is at liberty to examine these creditors and to satisfy himself about the capacity, genuineness and credit worthiness of such transactions. Both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes only.

This order was pronounced in the open Court in the presence of ld. Representatives from both sides at the conclusion of the hearing on 16.4.2012.

           Sd                                           sd


   (R.C.SHARMA)                               (JOGINDER SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                             JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 16.4 .2012

Copy to: Appellant, Respondent, CIT, CIT(A), DR, Guard File Dn/-

5