Mohan Lal Sharda S/o Dina Nath, Jalandhar V. The Income Tax Officer, Jalandhar

ITA 231/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8829 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 19-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAWANI SHANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV SHARMA; VIKAS SHARM A ADVS
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (CAMP AT JALANDH AR ) BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NOS. 230 & 231 (ASR.)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 & 2003-04 PAN: - AIZPS1051N SHRI MOHAN LAL SHARDA , S/O DINA NATH, 962/6, ADAMPUR DOABA, JALANDHAR. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD- IV(2), JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH.RAJIV SHARMA & VIKAS SHARM A (ADVS.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. BHAWANI SHANKAR (DR) DATE OF HEARING: 19.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21.02.201 7 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED CIT(A), JALANDHAR, DATED 24.02.2016, FOR ASST. YEARS: 2002-03 & 2003-04 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE APPEALS WERE EARLIER DISMISSED FOR NON PROSE CUTION VIDE TRIBUNAL ORDER DATED 20.06.2016, HOWEVER THE SAID O RDER WAS RECALLED VIDE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 16.09.2016 AND THE APPEALS WERE RESTORED TO THEIR ORIGINAL NUMBERS AND WERE LISTED FOR HEARING TODAY. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE IDENTICAL GROUND OF A PPEAL IN THE TWO APPEALS. THE CRUX OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY ASS ESSEE IS THAT THE ITA NOS. 230 & 231(ASR)/2016 A.Y: 2002-03 & 2003-2004 2 AUTHORITIES BELOW HAD NOT CONSIDERED THE CASH AS ON 01.04.2001 AS REFLECTED IN HIS BALANCE SHEET, WHICH WERE DULY FIL ED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 4. BRIEF FACTS AS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT ASSESSEE DEPOSITED CERTAIN AMOUNTS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED AND THEREFORE MADE A DDITION FOR THE SAME. THE LD. CIT(A) ON APPEAL ALLOWED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER WHILE ALLOWING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT( A) TOOK THE FIGURE OF OPENING CASH IN HAND AS ON 01.04.2001 AT RS. 50,000 /- INSTEAD OF CASH REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR, AT THE OUTSET, ARGUED THAT THE BALAN CE SHEET REFLECTED CASH IN HAND AS ON 31.03.2001 AND 31.03.2002 WHICH WAS DULY FILED BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A) BUT WHILE A LLOWING PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HYPOTHETICALLY TA KEN THE FIGURE OF RS. 50,000/-. 6. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED ON THE ORDE RS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT ASSESSEE HA D CLAIMED THE OPENING CASH IS IN HAND AS ON 01.04.2001 AT RS. 5,1 0,496/- WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOTED IN HIS ORDER AT PARA 7.6. THE ASSESSEES HAD ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE BALANCE SHEET REFLECTING THE ABOVE CASH IN HAND WAS ITA NOS. 230 & 231(ASR)/2016 A.Y: 2002-03 & 2003-2004 3 DULY FILED WITH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. THIS FACT HA S BEEN MENTIONED BY LD. CIT(A) IN PARA 7.6 AND LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOTED TH AT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT REJECTED THE BALANCE SHEET, CASH BOOK, CASH FLOW STATEMENT PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE WHILE MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDI TION. THEREFORE, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND AS TO HOW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN CASH IN HAND AT RS.50,000/-INSTEAD OF CASH IN HAND REFLECTED AS IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE LD. CIT(A) HAD REJECTED THE CLAIM OF CASH IN HA ND OF RS.3,81,070/- AS ON 01.04.2002 AS HE HELD THAT IN THE APPELLATE O RDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE HAD NEGATIVE CASH IN HAN D, WHEREAS WE FIND THAT NEGATIVE CASH IN HAND IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002- 03 HAD OCCURRED BECAUSE THE LD. CIT(A) HAD TAKEN THE FIGURE OF RS. 50,000/-AS OPENING CASH IN HAND INSTEAD OF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT HIS OPENING CASH IN HAND AS PER BALANCE SHEET WAS RS.5,10,496/-. THEREF ORE, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF A SSESSING OFFICER WHO SHOULD RE-WORK THE UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN BANK AFT ER VERIFYING THE CASH IN HAND AS ON 01.04.2001 AS CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IN HIS BALANCE SHEET FOR THE YEAR ON 03.03.2001 AND WHICH HAD BEEN CLAIMED T O HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW: 8. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT ASSESSEE WILL BE PROVIDED S UFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSES SEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS. 230 & 231(ASR)/2016 A.Y: 2002-03 & 2003-2004 4 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COUR T ON 21.02. 2017. SD/ SD/ (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 21.02.2017. /GP/SR. 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