SHRI KULDEEP KUMAR, GARSHANKAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, HOSHIARPUR

ITA 258/ASR/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5102 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 6 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: 10-06-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 05-05-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAKTI SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: J. K. BHASIN
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 69A

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.258/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kuldeep Kumar, S/o Tirath Ram VPO, Pandori Beet Kot Maira Garhshankar, Punjab. [PAN:DYLPK9695D] (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward (2), Hoshiarpur. (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. J. K. Bhasin, Adv Respondent by Sh. Shakti Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement 12.08.2024 ORDER Per: Udayan Das Gupta, JM This appeal is presented by the assessee against the order of the Ld. JCIT (A)-12, Mumbai, which has arisen out of the order of AO dated 22.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, 1961. 2. The grounds of appeal taken by the assessee are as follows: I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2 “1. That the ld. Addl.CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the assessee’s appeal ex-parte, without affording sufficient opportunity of hearing to assessee. 2. That the ld. Addl.CIT(A) having issued only one notice for hearing, which could not be accessed by assessee owing to illiteracy and backwardness, the assessee ought to have been given another notice for hearing. 3. That the impugned order, being in violation of the principles of natural justice, is liable to be set aside and hence, prayed to be restored back to appellate authority.” 3. The facts of the case are that the assessee is engaged in the business of running a small moveable shop (Khokha) and has filed his return of income declaring total income of Rs.3,50,000/-. He has deposited an amount of Rs.10,57,000/- in his bank account at Allahabad Bank during demonetization period. 3.1 In response to query of the AO asking for explanation of the source of deposit of cash, the assessee filed two affidavits, one from his wife Smt. Seema Rani and other from his father Sh. Surender Kumar, and submitted that the amount of Rs.2 lac has been received from his wife and the other amount of Rs.3,10,000/- has been received from his father. The total amount of Rs.10,57,000/- deposited in bank, also includes this amount of Rs.5,10,000/-. I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 3 3.2 The AO considering the entire facts of the case, only allowed him a benefit of Rs.2,50,000/- being his own personal funds which has been deposited in bank during demonetization period and the balance amount of Rs.8,07,000/- was added as unexplained cash deposits (in the form of “SBN”) and the same has been added to the total income u/s 69A of the Act and charged to tax accordingly. 4. In course of appellate proceedings before the first appellate authority, the assessee stated that the assessee is planning to file an application under VSV Scheme and prayed for adjournment of appeal. Subsequently, no written explanation or submissions has been filed by the assessee before the first appellate authority, and it is noted by the ld. JCIT (A) that the appellant has not also opted for VSV Scheme. 4.1 In absence of any submission or representation from the assessee the ld. first appellate authority has dismissed the appeal without any further opportunity of hearing. 5. The ld. AR before the Tribunal has argued that the appeal has been disposed of by the ld. Frist appellate authority without any proper opportunity of hearing. He further stated that no notice of hearing has been received except the very fast notice against which the assessee has already sought for an adjournment. Since proper opportunity of hearing has not been allowed, he prays that the case may I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 4 please be remanded back to the file of the ld. First appellate authority, so, that the appellant may get an opportunity to file documentary evidence in support of his grounds of appeal contained in Form No. 35. 6. The ld. DR argued that the first appellate authority has considered the grounds of the appeal and has also taken a decision on the basis of the available documents on records. As such, the appeal order should be sustained. 7. We have heard the rival submission and considered the material on record. We find that a notice dated 24.01.2024 has been issued from the office of the first appellate authority fixing the date of hearing on 08.02.2024, but in absence of any response from the assessee the appeal has been disposed of on the very same date on 08.02.2024, without any further opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 7.1 We are of the opinion that proper opportunity has not been granted and in the instant case, the assessee should be allowed one more opportunity to establish his case with the help of documentary evidences and further should be allowed production of books of account to explain the source of cash (SBN) in bank account during demonetization period. As such, in the interest of justice, we remit the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) / JCIT(A) with a direction to decide the issues contained in Form No. 35 on merits of the case after allowing a proper opportunity of being heard to the assessee and the assessee is also directed to file I.T.A. No.258/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 5 all necessary documentary evidences and written submissions for establishing his case before the first appellate authority. 8. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 258/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.258/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 6