SUKHMANDER SINGH, VILLAGE BUTTER, FARIDKOT V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, FARIDKOT

ITA 255/ASR/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5105 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-09-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DIGVIJAI KUMAR CHAUDHARY
• Section: 148; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.255/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Sh. Sukhmander Singh H. No. 25, Near Gurudawara Sahib, Vill, Butter, Mumara, Faridkot, [PAN:AAMPJ3215C] (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Faridkot. (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Ashwani Kumar, CA Respondent by Sh. Digvijai Kumar Chaudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 05.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 ORDER Per: Udayan Das Gupta, JM This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT (A) NFAC, order dated 17/07/2023, passed u/s 250 of the Act 61, which has arisen out of the order of the AO Ward 3(4), Faridkot dated 17.12.2018 for A.Y. 2011-12. I.T.A. No.255/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 2 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds in Form No. 36 which are as below: “1. That order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Nation । Face Less Appeal Centre, Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as m oh as he was not justified to decide the appeal ex- parte. 2. That the Learned CIT(A) was not justified in not c adding the appeal on merits. 3. That assessment framed by the Learned Assessing Officer and the additions made are against the documents produced and deserves to be annulled.” 3. Facts of the case are that the assessee has deposited an amount of Rs.42 lac cash in his bank account with SBI Sadiq Branch. 3.1 In absence of any return of income proceedings u/s 148 was initiated after obtaining necessary approval from higher authorities. In response to which, return of income has been filed electronically, disclosing income of Rs.5,000/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,85,000/-. 3.2 Regarding explanation of bank deposit of Rs.42 lac, the assessee claimed the same to have come out of sale proceeds of agricultural land of Sh. Harvinder I.T.A. No.255/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 3 Singh, “son in law of the assessee”. It has been stated that “son in law” Sh. Harvinder Singh has sold agricultural land at Distt. Moga for an amount of Rs.1.07 crores (evidenced by agreement to sale dated 17.03.2010) and out of the said amount received an amount of Rs.84 lacs was received on 27.05.2010, out of which half of the amount being Rs.42 lacs were deposited in the bank account of the assessee due to the security reasons. 3.3 However, no documentary evidence could be produced by the assessee in course of assessment proceedings except two copies of sale deed totaling Rs.31,60,000/- as evidenced of cash deposit. 3.4 The benefit of cash receipts of Rs.31,60,000/- has already been allowed by the AO to the daughter of the assessee Smt. Kulwinder Kaur who also is assessed to tax under the same jurisdictional ITO. As such, in absence of any corroborative evidence regarding the cash deposit of Rs.42 lacs, the same has been added back to the total income as unexplained cash deposits. 4. In course of appellate proceedings before the first appellate authority, the assessee has not made any representation to the notices issued by the ld. CIT(A) on four separate dates of hearing as evident from the body of the appeal order. In absence of any representation and submission from the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) I.T.A. No.255/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 4 dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the addition made by the AO is in accordance with the provisions of law. 5. Now, the matter is before the Tribunal on the ground that no notice of hearing from the office of the first appellate authority has been received in the E- mail ID provided by the assessee in Form No. 35. 6. The ld. AR of the assessee has drawn our attention in form no. 35 where the E-mail ID has been specifically provided for service of notice which is appearing in column no. 17 of form 35. 6.1 The ld. AR further stated that the E-mail ID mentioned as rakeshbansal [e-mail] and no notice of hearing has been issued to this E-mail ID and all notices of hearing from the office of the ld. CIT(A) has been issued in ITBA portal. He further relied on the judgment of Hon’ble jurisdictional Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of Munjal BCU Centre, CWP-21028-2023 (O&M) dated 04.03.2024, where the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court has observed that service of notice should be as per provisions of section 282 of the Act 1961 and service in ITBA portal is not sufficient compliance. 7. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merits. Respectfully following the observation of the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court, I.T.A. No.255/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 5 we remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal contained in form 35 on merits of the case after allowing proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee vide proper service of notice u/s 282 of the Act 1961. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 255/Asr/2024 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.08.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (UDAYAN DAS GUPTA) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order I.T.A. No.255/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2011-12 6