SHRI MANJIT SINGH S/O SHRI.GURDEV SINGH KHERA, MOGA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER -II, MOGA

ITA 278/ASR/2019

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Manjit Singh against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana, which upheld the additions made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Moga, under sections 144/147 and 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The additions pertained to unexplained cash deposits totaling Rs. 21,17,200 in the assessee's bank accounts for the assessment year 2006-07. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's decision after the assessee failed to provide satisfactory explanations or evidence regarding the source of the deposits. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) decided to remit the case back to the ITO for a fresh examination, granting the assessee another opportunity to present his case.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114964 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-02-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 07-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 22-04-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Set aside
• Section: 68; 148; 144; 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.278/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2006-07 Manjit Singh S/o Sh. Gurdev Singh Khera, Village & PO Kapure, Near Statium, Distt. Moga. [PAN: BBIPS3158M] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, - II,Moga. (Respondent) Appellant by None. Respondent by Sh. Rajeev Wadhera, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement 10.02.2023 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] bearing appeal No. 645/ROT/IT/CIT(A)-3/LDH/2014-15, date of order 01.11.2018, the order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity I.T.A. No.278/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2006-07 2 the Act] for A.Y. 2006-07.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Moga, (in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 144/147of the Act date of order 08.02.2014. The assessee has taken the following grounds: “1. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Order of Learned CIT is bad in law. 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer amounting to Rs. 21,17,200/- by applying the provisions of Section 68 of the Act. 3. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in ignoring the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer was not justified in framing the Assessment under section 144 of the Act. 4. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in rejecting the Explanation given by the Appellant. 5. That the Learned Assessing Officer has erred in reopening the case of the Appellant under section 148 of the Act. I.T.A. No.278/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2006-07 3 6. That there is no applicability of Section 68 of the Act in the case of the Appellant as the Appellant had never maintained any books of Accounts for the year under consideration. 7. That the Appellant craves leave to add/alter any of the grounds of Appeal before or during the course of Appellate Proceeding.” 2. Brief fact of the case is thatthe assessment was completed u/s 144/147 of the Act with addition of cash deposit in bank accounts, in the Central Cooperative Bank, Chaugwan, Distt. Moga and the Moga Central Co-operative Bank Ltd. Chaugwanamount to Rs.9,87,200/- and Rs.11,30,000/- which works out total amount of Rs.21,17,200/- for the relevant A.Y. 2006-07. The addition amount of Rs.21,17,200/- was added back u/s 68 of the Act for non-availability of the explanation and evidence from the end of the assessee. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). During hearing before the ld. CIT(A) none was appeared on behalf of assessee and the deposit of cash in bank account was remainedunexplained. Theld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being I.T.A. No.278/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2006-07 4 dissatisfied the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. When the appeal was called for hearing, no one appeared on behalf of assessee to represent his case. There is no application for seeking adjournment either. On perusal of record, we find that the notice was served to the assessee in different dates but there is no action from the end of the assessee. But none was present on behalf of the assessee. In view of the above and considering the nature of dispute, we proceed to dispose the appealex-parte qua the assessee after hearing the learnedDR and on the basis of material available on the record. 4. We consider the submission of the ld. Sr. DR and both the orders of the revenue authorities. In the appeal order, the ld. CIT(A) has made the following observation which is reproduced as below: “At the time of appellate proceedings the case of assessee was fixed several times from 05/10/2015, however exception two occasions when once on 09/03/2016 the counsel of assessee appeared seeking adjournment and thereafter the assessee appeared on 16/08/2017, wherein the assessee filed copy of bank account Moga Central co-operative bank, Moga, along I.T.A. No.278/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2006-07 5 with his written submission. The assessee Shri Manjit Singh attended on 16/08/2017, when the assessee filed copy of bank account of Moga Central co-operative bank Ltd in the name of his parents, stating that the deposits appearing in these accounts pertains to his parents. However the assessee did not filed any application for admitting additional evidence under 46A, nor the assessee filed any written documentary evidence in support of his claim that the deposits appearing in this account pertains to his parent however the appellant did not negate th base of information available with the assessing officer that the deposits have been made by the assessing in this account. Thereafter again the case of appellant was fixed for several times , however the assessee did not attend the proceedings neither any adjournment application was filed. The assessee again filed his same written submission on 16/08/2070 in DAK, on 24/10/2018, wherein the assessee has repeated the same arguments without annexing any documentary evidence in support of his contention. Apparently the assessee has completely failed to explain the cash deposits appearing in the both bank accounts as mentioned above. Regarding the cash deposits appearing in Central operative bank Moga of Rs. 11,30,000/- the I.T.A. No.278/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2006-07 6 assessee has explained the source of cash deposit as income out of agricultural income and past savings, however the assessee has completely failed to adduce any documentary evidence in support of his contention. Therefore considering the facts of the case and non cooperative attitude of the assessee ,at the time of assessment proceeding as well as in the appellant proceedings, it is held that ,the addition made by assessing officer on account of unexplained cash deposits appearing in both of the bank accounts have remained unexplained on the part of the assessee. Accordingly the addition of Rs. Rs.21,17,200/- under section 68 on account of unexplained cash deposits appearing in both of bank accounts in Central co-operative bank and Moga ,is upheld. With the result these grounds of appeal are dismissed.” 5. The assessment was completed u/s 144.The assessee had not got proper opportunity to submit the documents before the ld. AO. Further the unexplained deposit of cash was not considered by the ld. CIT(A). But in explanation before the ld. CIT(A), assessee informed that the cash of Rs.9,87,200/- were made into a saving bank account no. 2539 of his parent, Sh. Gurdev Singh and Smt. Gurdial Kaur maintained with Central Co-operative Bank, Distt. Moga and the cash deposit I.T.A. No.278/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2006-07 7 to Rs.11,30,000/- were made by the appellant into his bank account. But all the issues were never be verified. The assessee was failed to explain the cash deposit before any of the lower authorities. Considering the natural justice, the assessee should get one more opportunity to defend the addition, made by the ld AO. We remit back the issue to the ld. AO for fresh adjudication de novo. The assessee should cooperate the revenue in hearing by submitting the evidence. Needless to say, theld. AO shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanations submitted by assessee in his defence shall be admitted by the ld. AO and adjudicated on merits in accordance with law. We order accordingly. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 278/Asr/2019 is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 10.02.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE ) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT I.T.A. No.278/Asr/2019 Assessment Year: 2006-07 8 (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order