SHRI MANMOHAN SINGH , HOSHIARPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HOSHIARPUR

ITA 372/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0463 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATBIR SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: ROHIT BHARDWAR
• Section: 133(6)

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. 372/ASR/2018 (Assessment Year: 2009-10) Manmohan Singh Sethi S/o Sh. Mehar Singh, H.No. 171/4, Ward No.2, Opp. DAV College, Garshankar Distt. Hoshiarpur (PAN-DCAPS 7946L) (Appellant) vs Income-tax Officer Ward 2, Hoshiarpur (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Rohit Bhardwar, Adv. Respondent by: Sh. Satbir Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 12.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 05.07.2022 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-1, Jalandhar {in brevity ITA No. 372/Asr/2018 Manmohan Singh v. ITO CIT(A)} bearing appeal no. 10385/16-17/CIT(A)-1/JAL, order dated 26.03.2018, passed u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity of the Act) for the Assessment year 2009-10. The impugned order was originated from the order of Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Hoshiarpur (in brevity A.O) passed u/s.144/147 of the Act for the order dated 27.09.2016. 2. The brief fact of the case is that the assessee being a veteran solider from Indian Army aged about 87 years and now being the resident of United State of America (USA) left the country decade long. As per AIR information the assessee deposited Rs.39,30,000/- in bank account with Punjab National Bank, Railway Road, Hoshiarpur bearing account no. 0178000302174333 for the financial year 2008-09. The Assessing Authority completed verification by issue notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act. But no compliance from the end of the assessee. The order was passed u/s. 144/147 of the Act with addition amount to Rs.39,83,250/-. Aggrieved assessee filed appeal before CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) issued notices for hearing in different times. No compliance was also made from the end of the assessee. ITA No. 372/Asr/2018 Manmohan Singh v. ITO Accordingly, the order passed ex-parte. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of ld. A.O. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us. 3. The appeal before the ITAT was filed and delay of 34 days considering the age of the assessee, the ld. Counsel prayed for condonation of delay. Delay of 34 days is condoned. 4. During the appeal hearing the ld. Counsel of the assessee filed Paper Book with page nos. 1 to 83, which is kept on record. The fact is that the deposit of cash was unexplained before the Revenue Authorities. The assessee is permanently staying in USA. Current communicating address was not informed to any of the Authority. The observations of the ld. CIT(A) in page No.6 of the order is as follows: “5. I have considered the facts of the case and written submissions of the assessee. During the course of Appellate proceedings, numbers of notices were sent to the assessee on the address mentioned in the form 35 at column No. 17, on personal information of Form 35 and counsel of the assessee to make written submissions on 09.06.2017, 24.07.2017, 21.08.2017, 25.09.2017,003.11.2017,27.12.2017 but no submissions have been filed. Notice of hearing dated 22.02.2018 was sent through the assessing officer. On 01.03.2018, the assessing officer has replied that that notice was served through affixture. No written submissions have been filed, therefore, there was no option but to decide the matter on merits.” ITA No. 372/Asr/2018 Manmohan Singh v. ITO 5. In the paper book the ld. Counsel challenging the sanctity of the notice u/s. 148. As per the ld. Counsel the adjournment was filed due to health ground of assessee. The copies of letters are annexed in page no. 10-12 (APB Page 10-11). 6. The ld. Sr. DR Sh. Satbir Singh, argued and confirmed that none of the Revenue Authority was able to adjudicated the assessee in any stage. So, the addition should be confirmed. 7. We heard rival submission and relied on the documents available in the record related to source of deposit. The ld. Counsel of the assessee filed sale deed of property as proof of source of fund (APB 63-83) and drew our attention to letter of adjournments (APB 10-11). Considering the gravity of the case and the age of the assessee, the matter is setting aside to the ld. CIT(A) for adjudicating the matter denovo. The assessee is also directed to produce relevant documents before the Revenue Authority for further adjudication. The reasonable opportunity should be allowed to the assessee for representing of his case. ITA No. 372/Asr/2018 Manmohan Singh v. ITO 8. In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 05.07.2022 Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (Anikesh Banerjee ) Accountant Member Judicial Member Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order