RAM AVTAR BANSAL, NEW DELHI V. ITO, WARD- 61(2), NEW DELHI

ITA 2633/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1972 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 1 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-05-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R A BANSAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Source of fund

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 2633/DEL/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I(2) + SM C-1 NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEM BER, AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOU NTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2633/DEL/2019 ( A.Y 2011-12) RAM AVTAR BANSAL C-2/23, WEST ENCLAVE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI PIN: 110034 PAN: AAIPB0755D (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-61(2) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. R. A. BANSAL, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. PRADEEP SINGH GAUTAM, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 21/02/2019 PASSED BY CIT(A)-20 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY LD. ITO IS ILLEGAL, BAD IN LAW AND NOT MAINTAINABLE OR THE FEET AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CA SE. 2. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED SOURCE OF FUNDS OF RS. 38,57,500/- IN THE FIRST; WHICH BELONGS TO MY MOTHER AS FIRST APPLICAN T IN JOINT SB A/C WITH UCO BANK OF KIRTI NAGAR, NEW DELHI-110015 REGARDING CAS H DEPOSITED IN VARIOUS DATES. DATE OF HEARING 05.03.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 12.05.2020 2 ITA NO. 2633/DEL/2019 3. THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVIDE D SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. NO REGISTERED NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE WHILE MAKING ADDITION OF RS.38,31,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPO SIT AFTER PROVIDING WRITTEN SUBMISSION AS ON 14/12/2017. 4. OUT OF TOTAL ALLEGED SUM OF RS. 38,31,300/-, RS. 18,94,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM SMT. SHEELA JAIN AS PART PAYMENT AS ADVANCE AG AINST PROPERTY OUT OF RS. 30,94,000/- AND RS. 19,37,000/- WAS ADVANCE AGA INST ANOTHER PROPERTY FROM SH. O. P. SAGWAN AS PART PAYMENT OF RS.42,00,0 00/-. THE LD. PREVIOUS ASSESSING OFFICER WROTE CONFIRMATORY LETTER TO THE CONCERNED BUYERS WHO REPLIED ACCORDINGLY, AS ON 27/02/2014, 10/03/2014 A ND 14/3/2014. SUBSEQUENTLY THE UNDERSIGNED HAS REPAID THE SAME TO THE BUYERS FOR BUYING PEACE OF MIND AND AVOID LITIGATION. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRACTICING CHARTERED ACCOUNTA NT AND FILED INCOME TAX RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 2,58,100/- AND DERIV ED SALARY/INTEREST FROM ITS PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S R A BANSAL AND COMPANY AND INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSED THE INCOM E OF RS. 40,89,100/- BY ADDING A SUM OF RS. 38,31,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED INCOME WHICH PERTAINS TO CASH DEPOSIT IN UCO BANK. DURING THE F INANCIAL YEAR 2010-11, REGARDING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.38,31,000/-. THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING JOINT SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH HIS MOTHER AND HIS MOTHER IS THE FIRST APPLICANT AND TH E ASSESSEE IS A SECOND JOINT APPLICANT. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF TOTA L SUM OF RS. 38,31,000/-, AMOUNT OF RS. 18,94,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM SMT. SH EELA JAIN AS ADVANCED PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF AGREEMENT TO SALE DATED 1/4/2 010. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT RS. 19 ,37,000/- WAS RECEIVED AS ADVANCED AGAINST AGREEMENT OF SALE DEED DATED 3/3/2 011 AND HOUSE FROM SHRI O. P. SANGWAN OUT OF TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 42 LACS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED THE DETAILS OF BUYERS AND ALSO WROTE LETTERS TO THE BUYERS. THE WRITTEN REPLIES OF 3 ITA NO. 2633/DEL/2019 THE BUYERS WERE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEI VED ON 27/2/2014 AND 10/3/2014. IN THE MEANTIME, THE ASSESSEE REPAID TH E ENTIRE SUM OF ADVANCE TAKEN FROM BOTH THE PARTIES AND ALSO SUBMITTED THEI R AFFIDAVIT REGARDING SATISFACTION OF DUES AND CANCELLATION OF AGREEMENT OF SALE OF PROPERTIES. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE, UPON WHICH THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHERE IN THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 2/2/2017, REMANDED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FIL E OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 5. THEREAFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 22/12/2017 P ASSED A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER THEREBY SUSTAINING THE ADDITIONS O F RS. 18,94,000/-AND RS. 19,37,000/-. 6. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAS TOTALLY IGNORED THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNA L WHEREIN IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE MATTER REQUIRES EXAMINATION AT THE LEVEL O F ASSESSING OFFICER AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ATTACHED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WHIC H IS AFTER THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WAS NOT BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER AND THE SAID EVIDENCE ESTABLISHED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CR EDITORS. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT AT ALL DISCUSSED THE EVIDENCE IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 8. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A), IT CAN BE 4 ITA NO. 2633/DEL/2019 SEEN THAT AS PER THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL VID E ORDER DATED 02.02.2017, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO TAKE PROPER COGNIZANCE OF THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AT THAT STAGE. BUT WHILE PASSING THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIV EN ANY CLEAR FINDINGS AS RELATING TO THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK THIS MATTER TO T HE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ADJUDICATE THE MATTER A FRESH IN LIGHT O F THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSE SSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED: 12/05/2020 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 5 ITA NO. 2633/DEL/2019 DATE OF DICTATION 09.03.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 11.03.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 1 3 . 5 . 2 0 2 0 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER