Vijay Pindalik Kadam, Nashik V. Income-tax Officer,

CO 105/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1327 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 24-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJAY PUNGALIA ACIT
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Reasonable cause
• Section: 142(1); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA , AM . / ITA NO. 1 554 /PN/201 3 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 1 0 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 1 ( 3 ) , NASHIK . . APPELLANT VS. SHRI VIJAY PUNDLIK KADAM, RAJESH NIWAS, GOVINDNAGAR, PAPENGAON, YEOLA, NASHIK 423401 . RESP ONDENT PAN : A LQPK7723D . / C . O . NO. 105 /PN/201 4 . / C . O . NO. 105 /PN/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 1 0 SHRI VIJAY PUNDLIK KADAM, RAJESH NIWAS, GOVINDNAGAR, PAPENGAON, YEOLA, NASHIK 423401 . CROSS OBJECTOR PAN : ALQPK7723D VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(3), NASHIK. . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI SANJAY PUNGALIA, ACIT / DATE OF HEARING : 24 .0 9 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 .0 9 .2015 2 ITA NO.1 554 /PN/201 3 CO NO. 10 5 /PN/201 4 / OR DER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM : PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - I , NASHIK , DATED 27 . 0 5 .201 3 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 09 - 1 0 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 14 4 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE ASSESSEE HAS A LSO FILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 2. BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE SAME ASSESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 1 554 /PN/201 3 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD . CIT(A) - I , 1) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND . IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD . CIT(A) - I , NASHIK WAS J USTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS . 17 , 04 , 000 / - . 2) WHETHE R ON THE FACTS AND I N THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE LD . C I T(A) - I , NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED WHILE DECIDING THE I SSUE OF PEAK CASH DEPOSITS IN THE SAID SAVINGS BANK A/C AND NET AGRICULTURE INCOME. 3) WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE , THE LD . CIT(A) - I , NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN RELYING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE T IME OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHICH IS VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE I T . RULES WHICH HAD NOT FORWARDED TO THE A . O . FOR ACTUAL VERIF I CATION. 4) T HE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) - I , NASHIK MAY PLEASE B E CANCELLED AND THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESS I NG OFFICER MAY PLEASE BE RESTORED . 5) THE APPELLANT PRAYS LEAVE TO ADD , ALTER , CLARIFY , AMEND AND OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS AND W HEN THE OCCASION DEMANDS. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN CO NO. 10 5 /PN/201 4 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF OBJECTIONS: - 1 ) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE ERRED IN TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME BELONGI NG TO HUF OF THE APPELLANT, AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY DISREGARDING THE APPELLANTS THE APPELLANT, AS INCOME OF THE APPELLANT BY DISREGARDING THE APPELLANTS SPECIFIC CONTENTION IN THIS REGARD. 3 ITA NO.1 554 /PN/201 3 CO NO. 10 5 /PN/201 4 5. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 17,04,000/ - . 6. THE PRELIMINARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD IS WHETHER THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFI ED ON RELYING UPON THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WAS IN VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES , 1962 (RULES) SINCE THE SAME WAS N O T FORWARDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. 7. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,81,997/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT ON 17.08.2010 AND THEREAFTER, VARIOUS NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED QUESTIONNAIRE TO THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR OR RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSUED, EXCEPT ON 02.11.2011 ON WHICH DATE ALSO, ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT FOR COMPILING THE DETAILS. THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 08.11.2011 , ON WHICH DATE ALSO , THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED LETTER TO THE ASSESSEE DATED 02.12.20 11 THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF INFORMATION BEING FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSMENT WOULD BE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR AND HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT. AS PER TH E INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED CASH TOTALING RS. 17,04,000/ - IN HIS SAVINGS ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS AND HENCE, THE SAME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. 4 ITA NO.1 554 /PN/201 3 CO NO. 10 5 /PN/201 4 8. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT WAS RUNNING PATHOLOGY LAB AND WAS ALSO LOOKING AFTER THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES FOR THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY HIS FAMILY. HE FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND IT WA S POINTED OUT THAT THE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPTS AS WELL AS CASH RECEIPTS FROM DEBTORS WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT FROM TIME TO TIME. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT HE WAS NOT GIVEN PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BEFORE FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 8.3 NOTES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD F ILED SUBMISSIONS VIDE LETTER DATED 26.12.2011 , IN WHICH HE HAD REPLIED TO THE QUESTIONNAIRE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH WHICH, THE ASSESSEE HAD ENCLOSED THE COPY OF SAVI NGS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 23.12.2011. THE CIT(A) DELIBERATED ON THE ISSUE OF BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT TO BE PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WHILE DISPOSING OF AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE SUCH SECTION 144 OF THE ACT, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE SUCH ENQUIRIES AS IT THINKS FIT. THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTES THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RAISED SEVERAL QUESTIONS, NO SPECIFIC QUESTION REGARDING DE POSIT OF CASH IN AXIS BANK WAS RAISED, THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WA S IN RECEIPT OF AIR INFORMATION. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE CIT(A) THOUGHT IT FIT TO ENQUIRE INTO THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED ON THE BASIS OF SUMMARY OF RE CEIPTS AND PAYMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE PEAK OF THE CASH DEPOSIT AND CASH WITHDRAWALS IN THE SAVINGS ACCOUNT WAS RS. 5,78,100/ - . THE CIT(A) FURTHER NOTES THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OWNED BY THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER GIVI NG CREDIT OF RS. 3,93,750/ - , MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1,84,350/ - AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN AXIS BANK. 9. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF CIT(A). 5 ITA NO.1 554 /PN/201 3 CO NO. 10 5 /PN/201 4 10. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE BEFORE US POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES HAVING BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY HIM THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCE OF CASH GENERATION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND HAS M ERELY ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WITHOUT VERIFYING ITS VERACITY. THE REVENUE IS ALSO AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN NOT ALLOWING AN OPPORTUNITY OF VERIFICATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ENVISAGED UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES IN RELATI ON TO ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE STRESSED THAT NO SUCH EXPLANATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE ENQUIRIES, IF ANY, MADE BY THE CIT(A) WERE INSUFFICIENT. 11. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY, POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) HAD EXERCISED JURISDICTION AS PER CLAUSE (4) TO RULE 46A OF THE THAT THE CIT(A) HAD EXERCISED JURISDICTION AS PER CLAUSE (4) TO RULE 46A OF THE RULES, UNDER WHICH, HE IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRIES IF HE DEEMS FIT. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY HIM THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED THE INFORMATION ON 26.12.2011 THOUGH AFTER THE FINALIZATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 23.12.2011 , BUT THE DETAILS WERE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE AFORESAID WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS PLACED AT PAGE 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK, PERUSAL OF WHICH, DOES NOT REFLECT ANY DETAILS FURNISHED IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN SAVINGS ACCOUNT WITH AXIS BANK . 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. T HE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGGRIEV ED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE RULES WITHOUT FOLLOWING THE PRO VISIONS OF THE SAID RULE. RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES PROVIDE AS UNDER : 6 ITA NO.1 554 /PN/201 3 CO NO. 10 5 /PN/201 4 46A. (1) THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE DEPUT Y COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)], ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMS TANCES, NAMELY : ( A ) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED ; OR ( B ) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE [ASS ESSING OFFICER] ; OR ( C ) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL ; OR ( D ) WHERE THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. (2) NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB - RULE (1) UNLESS THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) ] RECORDS IN WRITING THE REASONS FOR ITS ADMISSION. (3) THE [DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] SHALL NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED UNDER SUB - RULE (1) UNLESS THE [ASSESSING OFFICER] HAS BEEN AL LOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY ( A ) TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR TO CROSS - EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT, OR ( B ) TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENT OR ANY WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. (4) NOTHING CONTAINED IN THIS RULE SHALL AFFECT THE POWER OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) [OR, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] TO DIRECT THE PRODUCTION OF ANY DOCUMENT, OR THE EXAMINATION OF ANY WITNESS, TO ENABLE HIM TO DISPOSE OF TH E APPEAL, OR FOR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING THE ENHANCEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY (WHETHER ON HIS OWN MOTION OR ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER CLAUSE ( A ) OF SUB - SECTION (1) OF SECTION 251 OR THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271. 7 ITA NO.1 554 /PN/201 3 CO NO. 10 5 /PN/201 4 1 3 . UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A, IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE, WHETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) EXCEPT THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS ARE PROVIDED UNDER SUB - RULE 1 TO RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, WHICH ARE AS UNDER : ( A ) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED ; OR ( B ) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY S UFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ; OR ( C ) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUN D OF APPEAL ; OR ( D ) WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 1 4 . AS PER THE FIRST EXCEPTION WHERE ANY EVIDENCE WAS SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ADMITTED BY THE AO, THEN SUCH EVIDENCE CAN BE PRODUCED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SATISFY THAT IT HAD THE ALLEGED EVIDENCE IN ITS POSSESSION AND WANTED TO PRODUCE THE SAME BEFORE THE AO. THE NEXT EXCEPTION IS IN SUCH CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FROM PRODUCING SUCH EVIDENCE, WHICH HAS BEEN CALLED UPON BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES HAS TO EST ABLISH THE REASONABLENESS OF HIS NON - PRODUCTION OF THE EVIDENCE CALLED UPON BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN CASE HE IS NOT ABLE TO JUSTIFY HIS NON - PRODUCTION OF THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE CALLED UPON BY THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADMITTED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. UNDER CLAUSE (C) TO RULE 46A(1), IN ALL SUCH CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY REASONABLE CAUSE FROM PRODUCING ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT TO ESTABLISH THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE AS SESSMENT 8 ITA NO.1 554 /PN/201 3 CO NO. 10 5 /PN/201 4 PROCEEDINGS, THEN WHERE THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISHES HIS CLAIM OF BEING PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE, THEN SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH IS NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES RAISED VIDE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS) MAY BE ADMITTED BY T HE CIT(APPEALS). THE LAST EXCEPTION TO RULE 46A IS WHERE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST HAS BEEN PASSED BY THE AO WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE THE EVIDENCE RELATABLE TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. 1 5 . UNDER SUB - RULE (2) TO RULE 4 6A, IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT NO EVIDENCE SHALL BE ADMITTED UNDER SUB - RULE (1) BY THE CIT(APPEALS) UNLESS HE RECORDS REASONS IN WRITING FOR ITS ADMISSION. UNDER SUB - RULE 3 TO RULE 46A, IT IS FURTHER PROVIDED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE BEING ADM ITTED, WOULD BE CONFRONTED TO THE AO, WHO IN - TURN WOULD EXAMINE THE EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS OR CROSS - EXAMINE THE WITNESS PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE SAID SUB - RULE ALSO PROVIDES THAT THE AO CAN PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE OR DOCUMENTS OR ANY WITNESS IN REBUTTAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. THE POWER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) TO CALL UPON EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. THE POWER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) TO CALL UPON THE APPELLANT TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENT OR EXAMINE ANY WITNESS IN ORDER TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL OR ANY OTHER SUBSTANTIAL CAUSE INCLUDING ENHANCEMENT O F THE ASSESSMENT OR PENALTY OR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271, IS NOT IMPAIRED. 16. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THERE WAS TOTAL NON - COMPLIANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR ON ANY OF THE DATES OF HEARING, EXCEPT ON ONE DATE TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS NOT REPLIED TO BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD AIR INF ORMATION OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 17,04,000/ - IN SAVINGS ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE WITH AXIS BANK. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID SUM WAS ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR 9 ITA NO.1 554 /PN/201 3 CO NO. 10 5 /PN/201 4 UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE CIT(A) IN THE A PPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NOTES THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, BUT HAD NOT RAISED ANY QUERY ABOUT THE SAID DEPOSIT OF CASH OF RS.17,04,000/ - . THE CIT(A) THUS, PROCEEDED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER EXAMINING THE RELEVANT FACTS. T HE FACTS AS BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WERE THAT HE WAS RUNNING A PATHOLOGY LAB AND WAS ALSO LOOKING AFTER THE LAND OF HIS FAMILY. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT AXIS BANK WAS USED FOR DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS OF AMOUNT IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY OF THE FAMILY. A SUMMARY OF RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS IN THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) , WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED IN TOTO. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES I.E. BEFORE ADMITTING ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE CONDITIONS PRESCRIBED IN THE SAID RULE HAVE TO BE LOOKED INTO AND IN CASE, THE ASSESSEE SATISF Y THE SAME THEN, SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE CAN BE ADMITTED. RULE 46A OF THE RULES FURTHER PROV IDES THAT ON SUCH ADMISSION OF THE EVIDENCE, THE SAME SHOULD BE CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. THE CIT(A) ON ITS OWN CAN MAKE CERTAIN ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION. THE CIT(A) ON ITS OWN CAN MAKE CERTAIN ENQUIRIES, BUT THEN THE ENQUIRIES SHOULD BE COMPLETE AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NO T BE ACCEPTED ON ITS FACE. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) REFLECTS THAT NO PROPER ENQUIRY HAS BEEN MADE BY THE CIT(A) AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME AND IN VIEW OF VIOLATION OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES, THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE ADJUDICATED AFTER FOLLOWING T HE PROCEDURE AS ENVISAGED IN THE STATUTE. HOWEVER, SINCE NO INFORMATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, NO PROCEEDINGS HAD TAKEN PLACE . WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUDICATE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE DE NOVO, AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS THUS, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10 ITA NO.1 554 /PN/201 3 CO NO. 10 5 /PN/201 4 17. IN VIEW OF O UR SETTING ASIDE THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER , THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BECOMES ACADEMIC AND THE SAME ARE DISMISSED. 18 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU R POSES AND THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 2015. SD/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 24 TH SEPTEMBER , 2015. GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / TH E RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - I , NASHIK ; 4. / THE CIT - I , NASHIK ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COP Y // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE