Sh Sant Singh, Chandigarh V. The Income Tax Officer, Chandigarh

ITA 263/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9904 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K MITTAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 263/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 SHRI. SANT SINGH VS. THE ITO # 2120, SECTOR 45-D WARD 5(3), CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. ADGPB1625B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. S.K. MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 23/06/2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/06/2016 ORDER PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A.M THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-2 DT. 25/01/2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. IN THIS APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) H AS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PLACED B EFORE HIM WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 2. THAT THE REJECTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ONLY O N THE BASIS OF REPORT OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IN TURN IS BASED ONLY ON SUSPICION, C ONJECTURES AND SURMISES AND AS SUCH THE REJECTION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS ILLEGAL, AR BITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE A DDITION OF RS. 14,96,667/- MADE IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IN UTTE R DISREGARD OF THE EXPLANATIONS RENDERED WHICH IS ILLEGAL, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIE D. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X (APPEALS) IS ERRONEOUS, ARBITRARY, OPPOSED TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND IS, THUS, UNTENABLE. 3. BRIEF FACTS ON THE ISSUE ARE THAT AS PER AIR INF ORMATION, ASSESSEE DEPOSITED A SUM OF RS. 56,30,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH H DFC BANK DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. ON BEING QUESTIONED REGARDING THE SOURCE OF D EPOSIT, ASSESSEE COULD NOT 2 EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 14,96,667 /- OUT OF THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 56,30,000/-. THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER ADD ED RS. 14,96,667/- AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 4. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE APPELLANT MADE SUBMISSION S THAT HE HAS SOLD AGRICULTURE LAND ALONGWITH HIS BROTHER SH. DAYAL SI NGH AND RECEIVED CONSIDERATION BY CHEQUE AND ALSO IN CASH OF RS. 22, 26,266/- WHICH WAS DEPOSITED IN HDFC BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND SHARE IN IT PERTAINS TO HIS BROTHER SH. DAYAL SINGH. DURING APPEAL PROCEEDI NGS THE APPELLANT FILED AN AFFIDAVIT FROM HIS BROTHER SH. DAYAL SINGH AND REQU ESTED FOR ADMISSION OF IT AS AN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULE S 1962. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) REMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO THE FILE OF AO. 6. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT HE IS A CLASS IV EMPLOYEE AND BIT UNAWARE OF INCOME TAX REGULATIONS AND COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SINCERELY REPRESENTED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE AO HELD THAT IT WAS FABRICATION BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CI T(A) IN THIS REGARD ALSO HELD THAT THE AFFIDAVIT FROM THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE IS A N AFTERTHOUGHT AND HENCE HE REJECTED THE ADMISSION OF THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EV IDENCE. HENCE AOS ACTION WAS CONFIRMED. 7. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 8. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. AN ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOV ED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE BUT IT IS CONSIDERED THAT THE CASE CAN BE DISPOSED OF BY HEARING THE LD. DR AND PERUSING THE RECORD. 9. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION I FIND THAT THE ASSES SEES SUBMISSIONS AND ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN DISMISSED WITHOUT PR OPER EXAMINATION AND VERIFICATION. THE ASSESSEE PLEA THAT HE IS A CLASS IV EMPLOYEE AND NOT PROPERLY 3 AWARE OF TAX PROCEDURE CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE, I F IND THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS SUBMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES THE SAME SHOULD BE EXAMINED FOR VERACITY. IT IN MY OPINION WILL BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PRINCI PLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT EVEN ADMINISTRATIVE ORDERS HAVE TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE RULES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES I DEEM I T APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO CONSID ER THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER EXAMINING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND SUBMISSIONS BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. NEEDLESS TO ADD ASSESSEE SHOUL D BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. 10. IN THE RESULT, THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS S TANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON SD/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 24/06/2016 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR