Case Number: ITA 440/DEL/2019
Appellant: Bhupendra Kumar, Bijnor
Respondent: ITO, Bijnor
Assessment Year: 2014-15
Case Filed On: 2019-01-21
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2019-11-07
Pronounced On: 2019-11-07
Bhupendra Kumar, a resident of Bijnor, filed an appeal against the order dated 11th December 2018 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], Moradabad, pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The appeal was heard by the Delhi ‘SMC’ Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), with Shri H.S. Sidhu, Judicial Member, presiding. The appellant was represented by Shri Vinjay Jain, CA, while the respondent was represented by Shri Amrit Lal, Senior DR.
The primary contention of the appellant was the addition of Rs. 4,130,000, which was stated during the survey conducted by the Income Tax Department. The appellant argued that this addition was unjustified as it was merely an estimation of investment in the building till the year 2013-14 and not solely for the year 2013-14. The appellant further contended that the hospital building had been constructed in 2008, with subsequent additions made over the years, and that the balance sheets and profit and loss accounts for the relevant years were provided as evidence.
During the hearing, the appellant’s counsel stated that all necessary documentary evidence had been submitted to both the Assessing Officer (AO) and the CIT(A), but these were not properly appreciated. The appellant requested that the issues in dispute be set aside to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, after giving adequate opportunity to substantiate his case.
The revenue representative did not raise any objections to the appellant’s request for a fresh assessment.
Upon reviewing the case, the ITAT observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal without properly appreciating the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant. The ITAT noted that the CIT(A) failed to provide detailed reasons for the decision as required under Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which mandates that the appellate order should mention points for determination and reasons for the decision.
The ITAT found merit in the appellant’s contention that the balance sheets and profit and loss accounts from 31st March 2009 to 31st March 2014 needed to be properly examined and verified by the AO. Consequently, the ITAT concluded that the matter required reconsideration at the level of the AO.
The ITAT set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A), Moradabad, and remanded the case back to the AO for fresh consideration. The AO was directed to examine all the documentary evidence submitted by the appellant and provide adequate opportunity for the appellant to be heard. The appellant was also directed to cooperate fully with the AO during the reassessment proceedings and avoid unnecessary adjournments.
The appeal by Bhupendra Kumar against the order of the CIT(A), Moradabad, was allowed for statistical purposes. The ITAT directed the AO to re-evaluate the issues in dispute in accordance with the law, ensuring that detailed reasons for the decision are provided and that the appellant is given a fair opportunity to present his case. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 7th November 2019.
This decision emphasizes the importance of proper examination and appreciation of documentary evidence in appellate proceedings. It underscores the obligation of the CIT(A) to provide detailed reasoning for decisions and ensure that appeals are adjudicated on their merits, even in cases where the appellant fails to appear.
The ruling in this case sets a precedent for future cases where appeals are dismissed without proper examination of documentary evidence. It reinforces the requirement for detailed reasoning in appellate orders and ensures that appeals are decided based on their merits, promoting procedural fairness and transparency in the appellate process.
The case of Bhupendra Kumar vs. ITO, Bijnor, highlights the importance of procedural adherence and detailed reasoning in appellate decisions. The ITAT’s decision to remand the case for reconsideration ensures that justice is served by providing the appellant with a fair opportunity to present his case and ensuring that the appeal is decided on its merits.
Bhupendra Kumar vs ITO: Reassessment of Unjustified Addition – ITA 440/DEL/2019
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform