Smt. Raj Sodhi W/O Sh. Jatinder Singh, MANSA V. The Income Tax Officer, MANSA

ITA 228/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9664 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A No.228(Asr)/2016 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Raj Sodhi W/o Sh. Jatinder Singh Ward No.1, Nr. Vishkarma Gurdwara, Sardul Garhi, Dist. Mansa. PAN:AZXPS4758D Vs. ITO, Ward-1 (4), Mansa. (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Sh. S.S. Kanwal (DR) Date of hearing: 11.07.2016 Date of pronouncement: 15.09.2016 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): This is an appeal filed by assessee against the order of learned CIT(A), Bathinda dated 17.02.2016 for Asst. Year: 2010-11. 2. At the time of hearing, it was found that the counsel of assessee had filed an application for adjournment but going through the facts of the case, it was found that there was a minor issue which could be disposed off even in the absence of learned Counsel of the assessee and therefore, the adjournment application was rejected and learned DR was heard. 3. We have heard the learned DR and has gone through the material placed on record. We find that earlier the Hon’ble ITAT had remitted back ITA No.228 (Asr)/2016 Asst. Year: 2010-11 2 the issue to the office of learned CIT(A), who was directed to admit the additional evidence. In view of the Hon’ble ITAT Order dated 23 rd Sep. 2015, the learned CIT(A) forwarded additional evidence to Assessing Officer for his comments and remand report was obtained. During remand proceedings, the assessee calculated the peak investment of Rs.10,52,224/- instead of Rs.11,90,907/- as reckoned by the AO in the original assessment proceedings. However, the appellant was asked to consolidate only the cash entries routed through the appellant’s bank accounts and therefore, the assessee calculated such amount at Rs.11,53,000/- and therefore, Assessing Officer was directed to substitute the figure of 11,53,000/- instead of Rs.11,90,907/-. The assessee vide Ground No.3 of the appeal has agitated that peak of all the consolidated accounts should have been considered by learned CIT(A). We are also of the opinion that the peak of all consolidated accounts should have been considered instead of considering only cash transactions of all the accounts, therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to accept the peak investment of Rs.10,52,224/- as against the direction of learned CIT(A) to consider it at Rs.11,53,000/- as peak investment. In view of the above, Ground No.3 of appeal is allowed. 4. Ground No.4 of appeal is for quashing the order of learned CIT(A) and acceptance of returned income which cannot be accepted as the assessee’s grievance in the earlier order of learned CIT(A) was only with regard to acceptance of additional evidence which the Hon’ble Tribunal had accepted and therefore, Ground No.4 is dismissed. ITA No.228 (Asr)/2016 Asst. Year: 2010-11 3 5. Ground No. 5 of the appeal taken by assessee is not coming out of the order of learned CIT(A) or the Assessing Officer. In view of the above, Ground No.5 is also dismissed. 6. Ground Nos.1, 2 & 6 are general in nature and do not require any adjudication, and therefore, dismissed. 7. In nutshell, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15.09.2016. Sd/- Sd/- (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated:15.09.2016. /PK/ Ps. Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Assessee: (2) The (3) The CIT(A), (4) The CIT, (5) The SR DR, I.T.A.T., True copy By Order