Sh. Narender Vijay Singhal, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3527/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: 352720114 RSA 2015
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 31-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 02-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: OM PRAKASH MEENA

Judgement Text

IN TH E INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC - I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO . 3527 /DEL/20 15 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 200 9 - 10 SH. NARENDER VIJAY SINGHAL C/O U.S. AGGARWAL, 505, MAITRI APARTMENTS SEC - 09, ROHINI, NEW DELHI PAN : AWBPS 3021 N VS. ITO, WARD - 50(2) CIVIC CENTRE, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI OM PRAKASH MEENA , SR. DR DATE OF HEARING: 31.07.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31. 07.2015 ORDER TH IS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE EX - PARTE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) - 17 , ON 2 5 .0 5 .20 1 2 IN RELATION TO THE AY 200 9 - 10 . 2. THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH ARISE S IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF 2,93,460/ - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON ACCOUNT OF CASH ITA NO. 3527 /DEL/20 15 2 DEPOSIT IN BANK , FOR WHICH THERE WAS NO AP P ROP RIATE SOURCE IN THE OPINION OF THE AO . 3 . BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER GOT AIR INFORMATION AS PER WHICH THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED A SUM OF 15,40,20 0/ - IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH ORIENTAL BANK OF COMMERCE . O N BEING CALLED UPON T O EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SUCH DEPOSIT S WERE MADE OUT OF WITHDRAWALS MADE ON EARLIER DATES WHICH COULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR CERTAIN REASON S AND HENCE THE AMOUNTS WERE REDEPOSIT ED IN THE SAID SAVING BANK ACCOU N T. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT EVEN IF IT WAS INFERRED THAT ENTIRE INCOME WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT, THE CASH DEPOSIT COULD NOT HAVE EXCEED E D RS.12,46,740/ - . H E THEREFORE, MADE ADDITION FOR THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.2,93,460/ - (RS.15,40,200/ - MINUS RS. 12,46,740/ - ) . T HE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT BEFORE THE LD. F IRST A PPELLATE A UTHORITY , WHO UPHELD THE ADDITION. 4 . I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO APPEARANCE FROM THE SIDE OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTICE . A S SUCH , I AM PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OF THIS APPEAL EX - PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS . ITA NO. 3527 /DEL/20 15 3 5 . IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY STATED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK OUT OF EARLIER CASH WITHDRAWALS , WHICH COULD NOT BE UTILIZED FOR THE DES IRED PURPOSE. T HIS CONTENTION HAS NOT BEEN DE A LT WITH BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW , WHO HAVE SIMPLY GONE BY THE AMOUN T OF INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS CHOSEN TO REMAIN ABSENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS WELL AS TRIBUNAL, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ENDS OF JUSTICE WOULD MEET ADEQUATELY , IF THE IMPUGNED ORD ER IS SET ASIDE AND THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER . I ORDER ACCORDINGLY AND DIRECT THE AO TO DEAL WITH THE ASSESSEE S CONTENTION ABOUT REDEPOSIT OF CASH WI THDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THEN DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AS PER LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ALLOWED A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING. 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. THE DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31 ST JULY, 201 5 . SD/ - (R.S. SYAL) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31 ST JULY, 2015 AKS ITA NO. 3527 /DEL/20 15 4 COPY FORWARDED TO 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR DY. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI *