ITO, Kashipur V. Sh Mukesh Rawal, Kashipur

ITA 1727/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 172720114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 24-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJNA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Assessment record

Judgement Text

ITA NO.1727/DEL/2013 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH E, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1727 /DEL/2013 A.Y. : 200 9 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER - 2, STATION ROAD, KASHIPUR (U.S. NAGAR) VS. SHRI MUKESH RAWAL, NEAR MATA MANDIR, KASHIPUR (U.S. NAGAR) UTTRANCHAL (PAN: ACRPR3933Q) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SH. P. DAM KANUNJNA, SR. DR ASSESSEE BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : DATE OF HEARING : 2 22 24 44 4- -- -11 1111 11- -- -201 201 201 2015 55 5 DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : DATE OF ORDER : 24 2424 24- -- -11 1111 11- -- -201 201 201 2015 55 5 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER PER PER PER H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU : : : : J JJ JM MM M THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, DEHRADUN D ATED 21.1.2013 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHE R CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT BY ACCEPTING THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NOT GIVEN REASONABLE OP PORTUINTY TO PRODUCE THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT CALLING FOR AND EXAM INATION OF ASSESSMENT RECORD. ITA NO.1727/DEL/2013 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WHETHER CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION WITHOUT APPR ECIATION OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES SUPPORTING THE AOS THJEOR Y THAT IMPREST ACCOUNT WAS CONCOCTED STORY. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE N OT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, THEREFORE, NEED NOT BEEN REPEATED HERE FO R THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 3. THIS CASE EARLIER CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE T HE BENCH ON 12.1.2015 AND 14.5.2015 AND NOTICES TO THIS EFFECT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE BY REGD. POST AD, BUT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ITS AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE APPEARED ON THESE DATES NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILE D. AGAIN IN THIS CASE, NOTICE OF HEARING FOR TODAY I.E. 24.11.2015 WAS SENT TO TH E ASSESSEE BY THE REGISTERED AD POST, IN SPITE OF THE SAME, AGAIN ASSESSEE, NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE, NOR FI LED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT NO USEFUL PURPOSE WOULD BE SERVED TO ISSUE NOTICE AGAIN AND A GAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, WE ARE DECIDING THE PRESENT APPEAL EXPA RTE QUA ASSESSEE, AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORDS. 4. LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO A ND STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21.1.20 13 AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE, WITHOUT PASSING A SPEAKING ORD ER. HE ALSO DRAW OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS THE IMPUGNED ORDER PARA NOS. 3.1 TO 5 AND STATED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORDER ON THE ISSU E IN DISPUTE, WHICH NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE AO TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH UN DER THE LAW, AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES. ITA NO.1727/DEL/2013 3 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORDS ESPECIALLY THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. WE FIND COGENCY IN TH E ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. DR THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT A SPEAKIN G ONE AND THE MATTER NEEDS TO BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDE RATION. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE ARE REPRODUCING THE RELEVANT PARA N OS. 3.3 TO 6.0 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS UNDER:- 3.3 THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF FACTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERE D. IT IS SEEN THAT THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE JUSTI FIED ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES IN THE IMPREST ACCOUNT. THE LD. AOS AS SERTION THAT THIS IS A CONCOCTED STORY IS NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE THESE ACC OUNTS WERE AVAILABLE ALWAYS AND HAD PROPER OPPORTUNITY BEEN GI VEN AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THIS CONTROVERSY COULD HAVE BEEN RESOLVED EVEN THEN. THUS THE TRANSACTION SHOWN IN THE BANK ACCOU NT ARE TREATED AS JUSTIFIED AND THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,40,870/- IS HE REBY DELETED. 4.0 THE SECOND GROUND CHALLENGES THE ADDITION OF RS . 3,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF FDR FROM ALLEGEDLY UNEXPLAINED S OURCES. THE LD. AR HAS AVERRED THAT THE FDRS WERE MADE FROM WI THDRAWALS MADE FROM THE SAME SAVING BANK ACCOUNT FROM WHICH T HE ADDITION AS PER GROUND NUMBER 1 HAS BEEN CHALLENGED. 4.1 THE FACTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. SINCE THE ALLEG EDLY UNEXPLAINED TRANSACTIONS IN THE TWO BANK ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN HEL D TO BE EXPLAINED. THE AMOUNTS EXPENDED ON FDRS ARE ALSO HE LD AS EXPLAINED. THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- IS ALSO DELETED. 5.0 THE LAST TWO GROUNDS HAVE NOT BEEN PRESSED AND ARE THUS DISMISSED. 6.0 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 5.1 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RELEVANT PARAS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE AO ALONG WITH THE EVIDENCE FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ISSUE REQUIRES THOROUGH EXAMINATION A T THE LEVEL OF THE AO. WE ALSO FIND FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT LD.CIT(A) HA S NOT PASSED THE SPEAKING ITA NO.1727/DEL/2013 4 ORDER ON THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE AND HAS NOT DISCUSSED THE ISSUE IN DETAIL AND DELETED THE ADDITION IN DISPUTE ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION BASIS. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , WE ARE REMITTING BACK THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE RAISED BY THE REVENUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE SAME AFRESH, UNDER THE LAW, AFTER GIVING FULL OPPORTUNITY TO THE PARTIES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE S TANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/11/2015. S SS SD DD D/ // /- -- - S SS SD DD D/ // /- -- - [ [[ [PRASHANT MAHARISHI PRASHANT MAHARISHI PRASHANT MAHARISHI PRASHANT MAHARISHI] ]] ] [ [[ [H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU] ]] ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL JUDICIAL MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER MEMBER DATE 24/11/2015 SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: COPY FORWARDED TO: - -- - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES