Amit Bahl (HUF), New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1094/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3367 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 01-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI KANT GUPTA SENIOR
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMEER MALHOTRA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH A : NEW DELHI) BEFORE HONBLE PRESIDENT, SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1094/DEL./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) M/S. AMIT BAHL (HUF), VS. CIT XI, 40/213, FIRST FLOOR, C.R. PARK, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 019. (PAN : AAHHA7630P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SAMEER MALHOTRA, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI RAVI KANT GUPTA, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 08.02.2018 DATE OF ORDER : 19.02.2018 O R D E R PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPELLANT, M/S. AMIT BAHL (HUF) (HEREINAFTER RE FERRED TO AS THE ASSESSEE) BY FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL, SOUGH T TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 29.11.2012 PASSED BY LD. CIT(A PPEALS)-XI, NEW DELHI QUA THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON THE GROUND S INTER ALIA THAT :- 1. THAT THE ADDITIONS BY THE LD. AO MADE U/S 69A O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR RS.23,14,500/- ARE UNCALLE D FOR AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-X I HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS. ITA NO.1094/DEL./2013 2 3. THAT NO SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE APPELLA TE ORDER, BY THE LD. CIT (A)-XI. 4. THAT THE EXPLANATION OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BA NK HAS NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE LD. CIT (A)-XI. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS NECESSARY FOR ADJUDICA TION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND ARE : AFTER REOPENING OF THE AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ( FOR SHORT THE ACT), THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.23,14,500/- DUE TO NON-FILING O F THE RELEVANT DETAILS QUA THE NUMEROUS CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS. 3. ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BY WAY OF FILING APP EAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO HAS DISMISSED THE APPEAL. FEELING AGGR IEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY WAY OF FILING TH E PRESENT APPEAL. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL, GONE THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UP ON AND ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE LIGHT OF TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE NOT FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE VARIOUS CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN HIS BA NK ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FI LED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE LD. CIT (A) DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS QUA WHICH REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED WHICH HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED BY T HE AO DESPITE REPEATED REMINDERS. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS NOT ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1094/DEL./2013 3 6. IN THE BACKDROP OF THE AFORESAID UNDISPUTED FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED VIEW THAT WHEN ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT ON RECORD ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY MOVING APP LICATION BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN ADMITTED BY THE L D. CIT (A) WITHOUT ANY FAULT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE GROUN D THAT REMAND REPORT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE AO. IT AMOUNTS TO DE NIAL OF OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE IF NECESSARY FOR COMPLETE ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE IN HAND CANNOT B E DENIED MERELY DUE TO THE NON-SUBMISSION OF REMAND REPORT BY THE AO. 7. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESS EE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) EXPLAINING THE CASH DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT ON DIFFERENT DATES IS A NECESSARY PIECE OF EVIDENCE REQUIRING FOR COMPLETE ADJUDICATION OF THE CONTROVERSY AT HAND. SO, WE ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL E VIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) AND REMAND THE CASE BACK TO THE AO TO DECIDE AFRESH AFTER PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS HEREBY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 19 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (G.D. AGRAWAL) (KULDIP SINGH) PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 19 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2018 TS ITA NO.1094/DEL./2013 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XI, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.