Amit Kumar Nehra, Meerut V. ITO, Ward-1(1), Meerut

ITA 1093/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7811 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S THUING ALENG
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV KUMAR SHARMA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.1093/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 AMIT KUMAR NEHRA, B-109, SHASTRI NAGAR, MEERUT, UTTAR PRADESH PAN: AJPPN7220F VS. ITO, WARD-1(1), MEERUT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, ADVOCA TE & SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR SHARMA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI P.S. THUINGALENG, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 12.12.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.12.2018 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 7 TH DECEMBER, 2017 OF THE CIT(A), MEERUT, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AS SESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSM ENT YEAR. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148, THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 6 TH DECEMBER, 2016 DECLARING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.22,60,000/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF ITA NO.1093/DEL/2018 2 RS.22,57,935/- IN THE SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAIN ED WITH UNION BANK OF INDIA, MEERUT. ON BEING ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE HAS AROUND 30 BIGHA OF LAND AND THERE ARE MANGO ORCHIDS ON THIS LAND WHICH WAS GIVEN BY HIM O N CONTRACT BASIS YEAR TO YEAR. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS ALSO FLO WER PLANTATION IN 10 BIGHA OF LAND. FROM THE COPIES OF KHASRA/KHATONI FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE ALONG WITH COPIES OF AGREEMENT/CONTRACT WITH DIFFERENT PARTIES, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED AT RS.22,60,000/- IS N OT JUSTIFIABLE IN VIEW OF THE LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE LEASE DEEDS FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING AGREEMENT/CONTRACT ARE NOT REGISTERED DOCUMENTS AND ARE MERELY SELF SERVING DOCUMENTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND CONSIDERING TH E FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING APPROXIMATELY 30 BIGHA OF LAND, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER ESTIMATED THE INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE AT RS.4,50,000/- AS REASONABLE. HE AC CORDINGLY, MADE ADDITION OF RS.18,07,843/- U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY SUBMISSION BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND W AS SEEKING ADJOURNMENT FROM TIME TO TIME AND ON CERTAIN OTHER DATES THERE WAS NO ATT ENDANCE AND NO WRITTEN EXPLANATION OR DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), HE DISMISS ED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE OBSERVING THAT ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS N OT BEEN CONTROVERTED DESPITE GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES AND THE ORDER REMAINS UNCONTE STED. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- ITA NO.1093/DEL/2018 3 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) MEERUT, U.P., HAS ACCEPTED THE INITIAL GROU NDS OF APPEAL BUT REJECTED THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED THEREAFTER, WHEREIN THE COU NSEL OF THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE CHALLENGED RE-OPENING OF THE CASE U/S 148 OF THE AC T. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) MEERUT, U.P., ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED DEPOSIT CAS OF RS. 22,57,935/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THAT WHILE SUSTAINING THE ABOVE SAID ADDITIONS THE LD. CIT (A) MEERUT, U.P. OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THERE WAS NO VALID MATERIAL OR BAS IS FOR HAVING MADE THE SAID ADDITIONS WHICH IS BAD IN LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINC IPAL OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW, THAT THE LD. CIT (A) MEERUT HAS ERRED IN LAW WHILE JUSTIFYIN G THE TREATMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BY NOT EVEN MENTIONING IN THE OR DER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT AN INDIVIDUAL AS HAS BEEN TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WARD 1 (1) MEERUT, AND DID NOT EVEN LISTEN AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNTS THE AVERMENTS MADE BY THE COUNSEL OF THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE. 3. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH T HE SIDES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, I FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.18,07,843/- U/S 69 OF THE IT ACT ON THE GROUND T HAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION REGA RDING THE EARNING OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.22,57,843/-. I FIND THE LD.CIT(A) DIS MISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DETAIL S BEFORE HIM AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER REMAINED UNCONTESTED. CONSIDERIN G THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I DEEM IT PROP ER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO GRANT ONE FINAL OPPORTUN ITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CASE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO HEREBY DIRECTED TO APPEAR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND EXPLAIN HIS CASE FA ILING WHICH THE LD.CIT(A) SHALL ITA NO.1093/DEL/2018 4 PASS APPROPRIATE ORDER AS PER LAW. I HOLD AND DIRE CT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.12.2018. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMFBE R DATED: 26 TH DECEMBER, 2018 DK COPY FORWARDED TO 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI