Smt. Geeta Talwar, Faridabad V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3270/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7379 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 2
• Next Hearing Date: 23-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S R WADHWA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-II : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3270/DEL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 GEETA TALWAR, HOUSE NO.1365, SECTOR-16, FARIDABAD. PAN: ABTPT1051C VS. ITO, WARD-22(1), NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.R. WADHWA, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI DEEPAK GARG, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.06.2016 ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 29.4.2014 IN RELATION TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE FIRST EFFECTIVE GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS AGAI NST NON-ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE LD. CIT(A). ITA NO.3270/DEL/2014 2 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.19.78 LAC IN HER SAV INGS BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED REPLY TO THE EFFECT THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAME BANK ACCO UNT ON VARIOUS DATES. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ASSESSEES CONTEN TION, WHICH LED TO THE MAKING OF ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.19,78,000/- U/S 69A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE TRIED TO FILE CERTAIN ADDITIONAL EVIDE NCE EXPLAINING HER CASE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE SA ME AND UPHELD THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 4. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOTICED THAT T HE ASSESSEE DID EXPLAIN TO THE AO THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE MADE OUT OF THE WITHDRAWALS FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT ON VARIOUS DATES, WHICH COULD NOT BE PROPERLY BACKED BY EVIDENCE. THE ASSESSEES ATTEMPT TO MAKE GOOD T HE DEFICIENCY LEFT AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, WAS FOILED AT THE END OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IN MY C ONSIDERED OPINION, THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY IF THE IMPUGN ED ORDER ON THIS ITA NO.3270/DEL/2014 3 SCORE IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO TH E FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND, THEREAFTER, DECIDE THE APPEAL ON MERITS. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE WI LL BE ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN SUCH PROCE EDINGS. 5. IN VIEW OF MY ABOVE DECISION ON THIS PRELIMINARY GROUND, THERE IS NO NEED TO ADJUDICATE THE OTHER GROUNDS ON MERITS AGAI NST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.06.20 16. SD/- [R.S. SYAL] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED, 23 RD JUNE, 2016. DK COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT AR, ITAT, NEW DELHI.