Shri Jasveer Singh, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2274/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7028 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 08-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 16-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AMRIT LAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC-2 NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2274/DEL/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 SH. JASVEER SINGH, VS. ITO, WARD-25(4) RZS-141, NIHAL VIHAR, NEW DELHI NAGLOI, NEW DELHI 110 041 (PAN: BESPS0796A) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. RS SINGHVI, ADV. REVENUE BY : SH. AMRIT LAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING ON : 08/09/2016 ORDER PRONOUNCED ON : .04/10/2 016 PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.1.2015 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), NEW DELHI RELAT ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1818000/- TOWARDS CASH DEPOSIT IN SAVING ACCOUNT, FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS AND GIVEN REASONABLE EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT. 2. THE ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS UNJUST, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. THE EXPLANATION FILED AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON 2 RECORDS HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSTRUED AND NOT CORRECTLY INTERPRETED. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE MERELY ON BASIS OF SURMISE AND CONJECTURES. 3. THAT THE PETITION ASSESSEE CRAVES THE LEAVE OF TH IS HONBLE COURT TO ADD, DELETE AND MODIFY ANY OR ALL THE CLAUSES OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 2. FACTS NARRATED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE N OT DISPUTED BY BOTH THE PARTIES, HENCE, THE SAME ARE NOT REPEATE D HERE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, LD. COUNSEL OF THE AS SESSEE HAS STATED THAT REVENUE AUTHORITIES HAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUBSTANTIATING ITS CLAIM BEFORE THEM. HE REQUESTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCE W HICH CAN BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO, IF THIS BENCH GRANTED AN OP PORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS FILED THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING PAGES 1 TO 12 IN WHICH HE HAS ATTACHED THE COPY OF LETTER DATED 29. 12.2008 FILED BEFORE AO ALONGWITH DOCUMENTS I.E. CONFIRMATION OF SMT. B HAJAN KUMAR AND SMT. RAVINDRA KAUR; COPY OF SALE DEED OF PROPERTY; COPY OF DOCUMENT REGARDING SALE OF TRUCK; CHART SHOWING INCOME IN S UBSEQUENT YEARS AS PER ITR AND COPY OF BANK STATEMENT. HE REQUESTED T HAT ISSUE IN DISPUTE MAY BE SET ASIDE TO THE AO. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS O F THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND OPPOSED THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COU NSEL. 5. I HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS T HE PAPER BOOK DETAILING THE EVIDENCES/DOCUMENTS, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES THOROUGH EXAMINAT ION AT THE LEVEL OF THE AO. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, I SET ASIDE THE ISSUES IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATI ON, AS PER LAW, AFTER 3 CONSIDERING ALL THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FULLY COOPERATE WITH THE AO DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM AND NOT TO TAKE ANY UNNECESSARY ADJOURNMENT IN THE CASE AND ALSO PRODUCE ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04/10/2016 . SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE 04/10/2016 SRBHATNAGAR COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT - 2. RESPONDENT - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, DELHI BENCHES