SHRI DEEPAK BANSAL, Jaipur V. ITO, Jaipur

ITA 243/JPR/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4902 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D C SHARMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 142(1); 234B; 69; 144

Judgement Text

1 ITA 243-12 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH : JAIPUR. BEFORE SHRI B.R. JAIN AND SHRI KUL BHARAT ITA NO. 243/JP/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09. SHRI DEEPAK BANSAL, VS. THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER, A-38, BHAN NAGAR, QUEENS ROAD, WARD 3(1), VAISHALI NAGAR, JAIPUR. JAIPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI MAHENDRA GARGIEYA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI DC SHARMA DATE OF HEARING : 22.08.2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.08.2013. ORDER PER B.R. JAIN, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 23 .01.2012 OF LD. CIT (A)-I, JAIPUR RAISES THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. THE IMPUGNED ORDER U/S 144 DATED 14.12.2010 IS B AD IN LAW AND ON FACTS OF THE CASE FOR WANT OF JURISDICTION AND FOR VARIOUS OTHER REASONS AND HENCE THE SAME KINDLY BE QUASHED AND IN ANY CASE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION/S BE DELETED. 2. THE LD. A.O. ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE FACT S OF THE CASE IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT A FFORDING ADEQUATE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY AND EVEN WITHOU T COMPLYING WITH THE MANDATORY STATUTORY REQUIREMENT OF LAW. TH E IMPUGNED ORDER HAVING BEEN FRAMED IN GROSS BREACH OF NATURAL JUSTICE, KINDLY BE QUASHED. 2 3. RS. 24,66,204/- : THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW A S WELL AS ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 24,66,204/- MADE U/S 69A OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN B ANK ACCOUNT (AS AGAINST ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. U/S 69 OF THE ACT). THE ADDITION SO MADE AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) I S TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND FACTS ON THE RECORD AND HENCE THE SAME KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 4. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON THE F ACTS OF THE CASE IN CHARGING INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE ACT. THE APPELLAN T TOTALLY DENIES IT LIABILITY OF CHARGING OF ANY SUCH INTEREST. THE INTEREST, SO CHARGED, BEING CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AN D FACTS, MAY KINDLY BE DELETED IN FULL. 2. IN GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 RAISED IN APPEAL, THE ASSES SEES COUNSEL CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED EX PARTE UNDER SECTIO N 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS THAT CAME TO BE ADDED AS ASSESSEES UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT BEYOND THE AMOUNT STATED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT ONLY ON 10.12.2010 BUT THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 14.12.2010 WITHOUT REQU IRING THE ASSESSEE TO STATE HIS CASE. THE ADDITION SO MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND C ONFIRMED BY LD. CIT (A) IS THUS UNJUST AND UNCALLED FOR. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R SUPPORTS THE FIND ING AND CONCLUSION REACHED BY AUTHORITIES BELOW AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CO-OPERAT E IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND FURNISHED NO EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO THE DEPOSIT S THAT WERE FOUND MADE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. 4. HEARD PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO MATERIAL ON RECO RD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SHOWN TO HAVE ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH EXPLANATION REGARDING DEPOSITS MADE IN CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 11,46,637/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT ON THE APPOINTED DAY ON 30.7.2010. AF TER SEVERAL ADJOURNMENTS, THE 3 ASSESSEE MADE COMPLIANCE TO THE NOTICE AND FURNISHE D COPY OF BANK STATEMENT MAINTAINED WITH STATE BANK OF INDIA ONLY ON 10.12.2010. THE AS SESSMENT IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN COMPLETED ON 14.12.2010 WITHOUT AFFORDING REASONABL E TIME TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ENTIRE DEPOSITS OF RS. 36,89,710/- AND FO R MAKING RESULTANT ADDITION OF RS. 24,66,204/- AFTER ALLOWING CREDIT FOR WITHDRAWAL OF RS. 12,23,506/-. SINCE THE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, WE D O NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION. WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE T HE ORDER AND REMIT THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY SO THAT REASONABLE AND EFFECTIV E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING HIS CASE AND TAKE DECIS ION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES ONLY AS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN THE PRESENCE OF PARTIES IMMEDIATE LY AFTER CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 22.8.2013. SD/- SD/- ( KUL BHARAT ) ( B. R. JAIN ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR, DATED : 22/08/2013. D/- COPY FORWARDED TO :- SHRI DEEPAK BANSAL, JAIPUR. THE ITO WARD 3(1), JAIPUR. THE CIT (A) THE CIT THE D/R GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 243/JP/2012) BY ORDER, AR ITAT JAIPUR. 4