Sh. Rasvinder Singh, Patiala V. ITO, Nabha

ITA 362/CHANDI/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2448 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: AMAN BANSAL
• Keywords: Additional evidence
• Section: 147; 148; 142(1); 250

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण,च डीगढ़ यायपीठ “बी” , च डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH ी आकाश द प जैन, उपा य एवं ी $व%म 'संह यादव, लेखा सद,य BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA NO. 362/Chd/ 2021 नधा रण वष / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shri Rasvinder Singh Nabha बनाम The ITO Nabha थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: DCMPS0490H अपीलाथ /Appellant यथ /Respondent नधा रती क! ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Aman Bansal, Advocate राज व क! ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Akashdeep, JCIT, Sr. DR स ु नवाई क! तार&ख/Date of Hearing : 26/09/2022 उदघोषणा क! तार&ख/Date of Pronouncement : 27/09/2022 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short the ‘Ld. CI T(A)’] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 11/10/2021 for assessment year 2010-11, wherein the assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal: 1. That the order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward Nabha and confirmed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre is illegal, unjust and uncalled for. 2. That the proceedings started under section 147/148 is illegal, unjust and uncalled for and without any solid reasons. 3. That the addition made worth Rs. 73,50,500.00 and confirmed by the CIT, NFAC merely on account of cash deposits in the Bank is illegal, unjust and uncalled for. 4. That the order passed by the CIT(Appeals) NFAC, without waiting for the remand report forward to the AO vide letter F.No. CIT(A)/PTA/2019-20/887 dt. 19/08/2019 filed under rule 46A and without giving proper opportunity to the appellant is illegal, unjust and against the actual facts of the case on the file. 5. That the addition made by the Income Tax Officer, Ward Nabha and confirmed by the CIT(Appeals) NFAC on account of Cash deposited in the Bank is illegal, unjust and uncalled for. 2 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that based on AIR information that the assessee had made cash deposits of Rs. 73,50,500/- in his bank account during the Financial Year relevant to the impugned Assessment Year, the case of the assessee was reopened under section 147 of the Act and notice under section 148 of the Act was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response to the notice, neither any return of income was filed nor the assessee attended the proceedings in response to the said notice. Thereafter the notice under section 142(1) was issued along with detail questionnaire. In response, the assessee submitted a copy of his bank statement and submitted that an amount of Rs. 73,50,500/- were deposited in his account on 16/09/2009 by Shri Hardam Singh S/o Dewa Singh after withdrawing the payment from his Cooperative Bank account and on the next day i.e, 17/09/2009, the assessee withdrew the amount and deposited the same to the account of Shri Hardam Singh. It was further submitted that Shri Hardam Singh has since expired and all relevant records are lying with his family. Thereafter, notice was issued to Shri Harpinder Singh S/o Late Shri Hardam Singh and in response, Shri Harpinder Singh refused having any knowledge of any such transaction undertaken by his late Father. Further, the assessee submitted copies of two registries whereby Shri Harpinder Singh had sold certain pieces of land on 12.02.2009. The submissions and explanation so submitted were not found acceptable to the AO, and after issuing a final show cause to the assessee, addition of Rs. 73,50,500/-were made in the hands of the assessee as unexplained cash deposit in respect of which the assessee could not furnish any plausible explanation. 3. Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and also moved an application under Rule 46A for consideration of additional evidences which were forwarded to the AO by his Ld. Predecessor vide letter dt. 19/08/2019 and thereafter taking into consideration the additional evidence submitted by the assessee, the addition made by the AO were confirmed by the ld CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi. Against the said findings and order, the assessee is in appeal before us. 4. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR referred to ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal and submitted that during the appellate proceeding, the assessee filed certain additional evidence before the ld CIT(A) by way of an affidavit of Shri 3 Hardam Singh alongwith the copy of statement of the bank account maintained by him and also copy of the purchase deed made by Shri Hardam Singh where the investment were made after the withdrawal of the impugned amount. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) vide his letter dt. 19/08/2019 had called for the Remand Report from the AO, however without waiting for the comments from the AO and without providing any further proper opportunity to the assessee, has gone ahead and decided the matter against the assessee wherein he has failed to appreciate the sequence of events as well as the contents of the documents so filed by the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee be allowed an opportunity and in all fairness the AO should also be allowed an opportunity whereby the matter can be thoroughly examined and an appropriate decision may be taken as per law. 4. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that subsequent to the transfer of the appellate jurisdiction to NFAC, New Delhi, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has gone ahead and the examined the additional evidence and it is not the case where the additional evidence submitted by the assessee has not been taken on record or not examined by the Ld. CIT(A). It was accordingly submitted that there is no infirmity in the order so passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC and the contentions so raised by the ld AR cannot be accepted. 5. We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. In the instant case, we find that the assessee has submitted additional evidence and the ld CIT(A) has called for the remand report from the AO on 19/08/2019 and the appellate proceedings have thereafter been shifted from the ld CIT(A) holding the regular charge to the ld CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi. There is thus sufficient lapse of time between filing the additional evidence, calling for the remand report and transfer of jurisdiction and final disposal of the appeal, in such a scenario, the Ld CIT(A), NFAC, on taking over the charge, in all fairness should have called for the remand report from the AO and thereafter, after considering the submissions of both the parties should have decided the matter. In the instant case, it is not emerging from record that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has issued any notice and called for remand report from the AO though the assessee has been issued a notice and his submissions dated 4 22.09.2021 have been considered. We believe that the Ld AR has been fair in his submissions that the AO be allowed an opportunity to examine the additional evidences so filed by the assessee. The Ld DR didn’t raise any objection where the matter is remanded to the file of the Ld CIT(A) to call for the remand report from the AO. In the interest of justice and fair play, we therefore set-aside the matter to the file of the ld CIT(A), NFAC to call for the remand report from the AO and allow an opportunity to the assessee to file his rejoinder/submissions to the remand report so submitted by the AO. The ground no. 2 of the assessee’s appeal is thus allowed for statistical purposes and the other grounds of appeal are thus left open and not adjudicated upon. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is disposed off in light of aforesaid directions. Order pronounced in the open Court on 27/09/2022. Sd/- Sd/- आकाश द प जैन $व%म 'संह यादव (AAKASH DEEP JAIN) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) उपा य / VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सद,य/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AG Date: 27 /09/2022 आदेश क! त,ल-प अ.े-षत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent 3. आयकर आय ु /त/ CIT 4. आयकर आय ु /त (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. -वभागीय त न4ध, आयकर अपील&य आ4धकरण, च7डीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाड फाईल/ Guard File आदेशान ु सार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar