Shri Govinderjit Singh, Nabha V. ITO Ward, Nabha

ITA 38/CHANDI/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3077 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-11-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence; Set aside
• Section: 142(1); 133(6); 207; 147; 148; 144

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT ./ ITA NO. 38/CHD/2020 / ASSESSMENT YEAR :2011-12 SHRI GOVINDERJIT SINGH, VILLAGE HIANA KHURD, P.O. AJNAUDA KALAN, NABHA. VS. THE ITO, WARD, NABHA. ./ PAN NO: CLVPS4520B / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AJAY JAIN, CA ! / REVENUE BY : SMT. MEENAKSHI VOHRA, ADDL. CIT ' # $ / DATE OF HEARING : 18.11.2020 %&'( $ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 .11.2020 / ORDER PER N.K.SAINI, VP THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 18.10.2019 OF THE LD. CIT(A) PATIALA. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEAL : 1. THAT THE ORDER OF LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD, AND AGAINST LAW AND FACTS. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY MADE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS. 20.00 LAKHS, WITHOUT APP RECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS. 10.00 LAKHS IN CASH IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. 3. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, IS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN TREATING THE BANK DEPOSIT AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE DEPOS IT WAS MADE OUT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTE R OR WITHDRAW ANY GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE FINAL HEARING. ITA NO. 38/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 2 OF 12 2. THE ONLY GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPE AL RELATES TO THE SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION OF RS. 20 LACS MADE B Y THE AO. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE AO ON T HE BASIS OF INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSIT S OF RS. 20 LACS WITH HDFC BANK DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 20 10-11 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 R EAD WITH SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ). SINCE NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS R ECEIVED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT, THE AO A SSESSED THE INCOME OF RS. 20 LACS TREATING THE SAME AS UNDISCLO SED INCOME. 3. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R TO THE LD. CIT(A) AND FURNISHED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WH ICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN PARA 2 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH READS AS UNDER 'SUB: APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SH. GOVI NDERJIT SINGH R/O VILLAGE HIANA KALNA, NABHA A.Y. 2011-12 -PAN: CLVPS4520B FACTS IN BRIEF: CASE OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN REOPENED TO VERIFY T HE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.20,00,000/- IN HIS HDFC BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT DID NOT ATT END THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETE D THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 AND CHARGED THE AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS TO TAX AS UNEXPLA INED DEPOSIT WHEREAS THERE IS DEPOSIT OF RS. 10 LAKHS ONLY. GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORD ER AND DID NOT VERIFY THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY HER UNDER NON-FILER SYSTEM OF THE DEPAR TMENT FROM THE CONCERNED BANK; ORDER SO PASSED DESERVES TO BE REMANDED BACK FOR DISPOSAL AFRESH. ITA NO. 38/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 3 OF 12 1. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN AGRICULTURI ST. A NOTICE U/S 148 DATED30.03.2018 WAS ISSUED TO HIM FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12. AS PER PARA 1.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RE-OPENED TO VERIFY THE SOURC E OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.20,00,000/- IN HDFC BANK. AS THE APPELLANT DID NOT RESPOND TO T HE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER, SHE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT EX- PARTE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND CHARGED THE AMO UNT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.20 LAKH IN HIS HDFC BANK ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT. 2. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED A NON-SPEAKING ORDER WHICH DOES NOT DISCLOSE DATE-WISE DETAILS OF THE CASH DEP OSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CON CLUDED HER ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEE'S INCOME ON THE BASIS OF VAGUE, UNCERTAIN, INDEFINITE AND UNCLEAR INFORMATION. IT IS SUBMITTED THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHO UT VERIFYING THE INFORMATION RECEIVED BY HER UNDER NON-FILER SYSTEM OF THE DEPARTMENT FRO M THE CONCERNED BANK, MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.20 LAKHS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS DE POSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,00,000/-ONLY ON 18.03.2011 IN HIS HDFC BANK A/C NO. 01561000199117. A COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IS ENCLOSED HERE WITH AT PAGE 4. 3. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 144(1), THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL WHICH THE A.O HAS GATHERED, SHALL MAKE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT AND DETERMINE THE SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH AS SESSMENT. IT IS A TRITE LAW THAT THOUGH THERE IS AN ELEMENT OF GUESS WORK IN A BEST JUDGMENT', IT SHALL NOT BE A WILD ONE BUT SHALL HAVE REASONABLE NEXUS TO THE AVAILABLE MA TERIAL AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS GATHERED INFORMATION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEPOSITED RS.20 LAKH IN HDFC BANK BUT SHE HAS NEITHER TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT ON HER RECO RD NOR VERIFY THE CASH DEPOSIT FROM THE CONCERNED BANK TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT A SPEAKING ORDER AS IT DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE DETAIL OF CASH DEPOSITS. IN THIS REGARD THE APPELLANT RELIES UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS: CASE LAWS CIT V. RANICHERRA TEA CO. LTD. [L994] 207 ITR 979 (CAL.) IN THIS CASE, IT WAS HELD THAT IN MAKING A BEST JUD GMENT ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT POSSESS ABSOLUTE ARBITRARY AUTHORI TY TO ASSESS ANY FIGURE HE LIKES. ALTHOUGH HE IS NOT BOUND BY STRICT JUDICIAL PRINCIP LES, HE SHOULD BE GUIDED BY RULES OF JUSTICE, EQUITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE. THOUGH THERE I S AN ELEMENT OF GUESS WORK IN A 'BEST JUDGMENT', IT SHALL NOT BE WILD ONE BUT SHALL HAVE REASONABLE NEXUS TO THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE. ITO V. JITENDER MEHRA (1995) 53 ITD 396 (DEL-TRIB.) IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDE R SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT MUST CONFORM TO RULES OF JUSTICE, EQ UITY AND GOOD CONSCIENCE AND CANNOT BE ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. THERE MAY BE SOME GUESS WORK, BUT STILL THERE SHOULD BE NEXUS BETWEEN MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND INCOME TAKEN FOR ASSESSMENT. 4. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS : ITA NO. 38/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 4 OF 12 1. CIT V. RANICHERRA TEA CO. LTD. [L994] 207 ITR 9 79 (CAL.) 2. ITO V. JITENDER MEHRA (1995) 53 ITD 396 (DEL-TRI B.) ) 5. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED AS UNDER : 4. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT NOTICES ARE BEING ISSUED T O THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS FROM THE CONCERNED BANKS. A SIM ILAR CASE HAS BEEN REPORTED IN THE DAILY TRIBUNE DATED 04.02.2019 THAT A NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED BY THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SANGRUR FOR CASH TRANSACTION OF RS.1.3 CRORE TO AN ASSESSEE WHEREAS HE HAS NOT MADE ANY TR ANSACTION IN HIS ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY, NOTICES WERE ISSUED BY THE LD. A.O. NABHA IN THE FOLLOWING CASES TO VERIFY CASH DEPOSITS BUT AFTER E NQUIRY FROM THE CONCERNED BANKS, DEPOSITS WERE FOUND AT A VERY LOWE R AMOUNT WHICH SHOWS THAT THE DATA COLLECTING AGENCIES OF THE DEPA RTMENT ARE SUPPLYING FIGURES OF CASH DEPOSITS WHICH ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL DEPOSITS: NAME OF THE ASSESSEE CASE DECIDED ON AMOUNT TO BE VERIFIED ACTUAL DEPOSIT SUKHWINDER SINGH R/O VILLAGE HIANA KALANA PAN: CTXPS9138K A.Y. 2011-12 09.10.2018 19,35,000 4,25,000 JAGTAR SINGH R/O V. HIANA KALAN PAN:CQGPS4969E A.Y. 2011-12 14.12.2018 67,10,000 16,77,220 DAYAL SINGH S/O NARATA SINGH, VILLAGE RAMGARH PAN: DHDPS5123P 13.12.2018 55,51,000 32,51,000 RAJINDER KUMAR S/O MEGH RAJ V. ALLOWAL PAN: BVHPK5816M A.Y. 2011-12 28.11.2018 26,00,000 3,95,000 SHRI BHAN JINDAL, NABHA PAN:AIQPJ7871C A.Y. 2011-12 26.12.2018 45,96,831 38,44,015 6. THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FO RWARDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE AO FOR HIS COMMENTS. IN R ESPONSE, THE AO SUBMITTED AS UNDER : KINDLY REFER TO YOUR GOOD-SELF'S LETTER NO. CI T(A)/PTA/2019-20/2398 DATED 22.03.2019 ON THE ABOVE SUBJECT. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER FACTS ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINING A BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK DURING TH E F.Y. 2010-11, RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2011-12. AN INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED ON AI R THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PERIOD UNDER REFERENCE HAS DEPOSITED AN AMOUNT OF R S. 10,00,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK. ANOTHER INFORMATION WAS ALS O RECEIVED THROUGH CIB THAT THERE IS A DEPOSIT OF RS. 10,00,000/- IN HIS BANK A CCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK. ON THE BASIS OF SUCH NMS INFORMATION, A NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 133(6) OF THE IT. ACT WAS ISSUED INTER-ALIA ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN TH E SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS, 20,00,000/- IN HIS HDFC BANK ACCOUNT. THE NOTICE WA S SENT VIDE REGISTERED POST AND WAS NOT RECEIVED BACK UNDELIVERED. AS NO COMMUN ICATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ITA NO. 38/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 5 OF 12 ASSESSEE ANOTHER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 05.01.2018 WAS AGAIN ISSUED. HOWEVER, THIS NOTICE AGAIN REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH. IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, A FINAL OPPORTUNITY WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AS PE R NOTICE DATED 13.03.2018 VIDE WHICH A COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 28.11.2017, WHICH WAS EARLIER SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST, WAS ALSO ENCLOSED. THE NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE AFFORDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSES SEE FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE TERMS OF NOTICE ISSUED ON 28.11.2017, 05.01.2018 AN D 13.03.2018. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE PROCE EDINGS WITHIN THE MEANINGS OF SECTION 147 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WERE INITIATED ACCO RDINGLY, A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE IT. ACT DATED 30.03.2018 VIDE RI_A RP 76 3089958IN WHICH WAS NOT RECEIVED BACK UNDELIVERED. HOWEVER, NO RETURN OF IN COME WAS RECEIVE IN RESPONSE TO SUCH NOTICE. 3. SUBSEQUENT TO THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER S ECTION 148 OF THE IT. ACT AND NO RECEIPT OF RETURN OF INCOME A NOTICE UNDER SECTI ON 142(1) DATED 13.06.2018 ALONG WITH A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH HIS RETURN OF INCOME, WAS ISSUED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE REFUSED TO RECEIVED T HE SAID NOTICE, AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE REPORT OF THE PROCESS SERVER DATED 19.06.2018 O N THE NOTICE ITSELF. HOWEVER, NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. 3.1 AGAIN A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142( 1) DATED 23.07.2018 WAS ISSUED REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH HIS RETURN OF INC OME. IT WAS ALSO MADE CLEAR IN THE NOTICE ITSELF THAT FAILURE TO FILE THE RETURN OF IN COME AND FURNISHING OF REQUISITE CLARIFICATION/INFORMATION AND DETAILS SUPPORTED WIT H DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, THE UNDERSIGNED WILL BE LEFT WITH NO ALTERNATE BUT TO C OMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. HOWEVER, NO COM PLIANCE WAS MADE. 3.2 SUBSEQUENTLY, ANOTHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 2(1) DATED 05.09.2018 WAS ISSUED WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 11. 09.2018. IN THIS NOTICE REFERENCE OF ALL THE PREVIOUS NOTICES ISSUED WAS MENTIONED AN D A LAST OPPORTUNITY TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION WAS GIVEN. HOWEVER, NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE. 3.3 ANOTHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) DATED 09 .10.2018 WAS AGAIN ISSUED BUT REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH. 3.4 DESPITE NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES ISSUED PRE VIOUSLY, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, A FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 01.11.2018 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 02.11.2018. IN THIS NOTICE IT WAS PROPOSED TO MAKE AN ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000/- IN THE ABSENCE OF REQUISITE CLARIFICATIONS AND DOCUMEN TS. HOWEVER, THIS NOTICE AGAIN REMAINED UN-COMPLIED WITH. 3.5 THOUGH NO FURTHER COMMUNICATION WAS JUSTIFIA BLE DUE TO NON-COMPLIANCE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT IN THE INTEREST JUSTI CE AN OPPORTUNITY AS PER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) DATED 22.11.2018 WAS ISSUED FIXING T HE CASE FOR 28.11.2018 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE NEVER COMPLIED WITH THE NOTICES ISSUED RESULTING IN COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AT THE FAR END OF THE LIMI TATION PERIOD, AS PER ORDER DATED 05.12.2018 UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE IT. ACT THEREBY MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000/- AS PROPOSED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE . 4. BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ORDER DATED 05.12.2018 OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE YOUR GOOD-S ELF WHICH IS UNDER ITA NO. 38/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 6 OF 12 CONSIDERATION. IN HIS APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMIT TED THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 10,00,000/- ON 18.03.2011 AND HAS ACCORDINGLY, MADE A REQUEST FOR CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.10,00,000/-, AS AGAINST RS.20,00,000 /- MADE AS PER ORDER DATED 05.12.2018.IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESS EE HAS ALSO FILED A COPY OF HIS BANK STATEMENT OF A/C NO. 01561000199117 WITH HDFC BANK. AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT, THIS ACCOUNT WAS OPENED ON 25.01.2011 AN D THERE IS A CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.10,00,000/-ON 18.03.2011, AS I EVIDENT FROM HIS BANK STATEMENT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED AS TO WHETHER HE IS MAIN TAINING ANY OTHER BANK ACCOUNT EXCEPT A BANK ACCOUNT NO.01561000199117 WITH HDFC B ANK. 4.1 IN HIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE YOUR GOOD-SELF, THE ASSESSEE HAS VIRTUALLY ADMITTED THAT HE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT IS UN EXPLAINED. HE FURTHER ADMITTED THE FACT OF NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE RECEIVED BY HI M FROM TIME TO TIME IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, NO PLAUSIBLE EX PLANATION HAS BEEN GIVEN FOR NONCOMPLIANCE OF SUCH NOTICE WHERE THE DEPOSIT OF R S.20,00,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK WAS CONFRONTED TO HIM. CONSE QUENTLY, NON-SUBMISSION OF RETURN OF INCOME AND REQUISITE DOCUMENTS THOUGH THE INFORMATION OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.20,00,000/- WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM IN THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS MADE AVAILABLE TO HIM IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT AUTHORIZE THE ASSESSEE TO AGITATE DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION MADE. IN THE LIGHT OF THESE FACTS, THERE I S NO MERIT IN HIS CONTENTION AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 5. FROM THE FACTS ADDUCED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT TH AT THE ASSESSEE EITHER CONTINUED TO RESORT TO NON-COMPLIANCE OF NOTICES DESPITE AFFO RDING OF REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES, FROM TIME TO TIME, AS DISCUSSED SUPRA, OR TO ESTABL ISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. AS THE ASSESSEE WAS DELIBERATELY AVOIDING THE FURNISHING OF REQUISITE DOCUMENTS/DETAILS AND FAILE D TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT, BEING LEFT WI TH NO ALTERNATE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS ULTIMATELY COMPLETED AT THE FAG END OF THE LIMI TATION PERIOD, AS PER ORDER DATED 05.12.2018 BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000/- AS PROPOSED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE. THEREFORE, IN THE GIVEN CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITL ED TO ANY RELIEF, AS SOUGHT FOR AND HIS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCE REQUIRES NO CONSIDERATION. 6. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLAC E TO MENTION HERE THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF RULE-46A, IT IS PROVIDED THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE, AT THE APPELLATE STAGE, OTHER THAN THE EV IDENCE PRODUCED BY HIM DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER , EXCEPT IN THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY ; A) WHERE THE (ASSESSING OFFICER) HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED, B) WHERE HE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUS E FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH HE WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE (ASSESSING OFFICER) OR C) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAU SE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER) ANY EVIDENCE WHICH IS RELEVANT T O ANY GROUND OF APPEAL; OR D) WHERE THE (ASSESSING OFFICER) HAS MADE THE ORDER AP PEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY AGAINST WITHOUT GIVIN G SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. ITA NO. 38/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 7 OF 12 6.1 THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, IF IT IS VIEWE D W.R.T. THE CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT HIS REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DOES NOT FALL IN ANY OF EXCEPTION PROVIDED UNDER RU LES 46A OF IT RULES, 1962. EVEN ON MERITS, FROM THE FACTS ADDUCED ABOVE, IT IS EVID ENT THAT DURING THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES W ERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT BUT HE FAILED TO AVAIL SUCH OPPORTUNITIES. THIS RATHER INDICATES THAT THE ASSES SEE WAS PURPOSELY AVOIDING THE COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE TO DEPRIVE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR MAKING THROUGH INVESTIGATION IN THE MATTER. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE ASSESSEE IS USING DIEL ECTRIC TACTICS IN FURNISHING THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND DETAILS ETC., THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IS WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGE MENT ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. HOW EVER, YOUR KIND DIRECTION IN THE MATTER ARE SOLICITED.' 7. THE LD. CIT(A) FORWARDED THE REPORT OF THE AO T O THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS COMMENTS. IN RESPONSE, IT WAS SUBM ITTED AS UNDER : 2.2 A COPY OF THE ABOVE REPORT WAS SENT TO THE APPELLAN T FOR COMMENTS. IN RESPONSE THE AR SUBMITTED HIS ARGUMENTS AS UNDER: 'SUB: APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SH. GOVI NDERJIT SINGH R/O VILLAGE HIANA KALNA, NABHA A.Y. 2011-12 -PAN: CLVPS4520B KINDLY REFER TO YOUR NOTICE OF HEARING NO. 948 DATE D 13.09.2019 AND THE COUNTER COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ATTACHED WITH THE NOTICE. 1. REGARDING GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1, IT IS SUBMITTE D THAT CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS REOPENED TO VERIFY CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.20,00,000 /- IN HIS HDFC BANK ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT IS AN AGRICULTURIST. HE NEITHER FURNI SHED HIS INCOME TAX RETURN NOR ATTENDED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, T HE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 AND CHARGED THE AM OUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT. HOWEVER, A PERUSAL OF THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD OF ASSESSING OFFICER REVEALS THAT THE RE IS CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.10 LAKHS ONLY. THE APPELLANT VIDE HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DA TED 20.03.2019 CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AS IT DOES NOT DISCLOSE THE DETAIL OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. PROVISIONS O F SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WERE REFERRED TO WHEREIN IT IS PROVIDED T HAT 'THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL WHICH THE A.O HAS GATHERED, SHALL MAKE THE ASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS TO THE B EST OF HIS JUDGMENT AND DETERMINE THE SUM PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SUC H ASSESSMENT'. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS AVAILABL E WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH DISCLOSES THAT CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,00,000/- HA S BEEN DEPOSITED BUT THE LEARNED ITA NO. 38/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 8 OF 12 ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT WHI LE MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.20,00,000/- AND HAS THUS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144. 2. IN THE COUNTER COMMENTS, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS CONFIRMED THAT INFORMATION REGARDING CASH TRANSACTION WAS RECEIVED FROM AIR AND CIB AND BOTH THESE SOURCES REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITE D CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,00,000/- IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT. ON THE BASIS THIS INFORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS DEPOSITED RS.20,00 ,000/-IN HIS BANK. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT FOR VERIFICATI ON OF SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.20,00,000/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED O UT IN PARA 2 TO 6 OF HER COMMENTS THAT VARIOUS NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE APPELLANT B UT HE DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS. IT IS ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DID N OT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS. 3. IN PARA 6 OF THE COMMENTS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A. IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY SUBMITTED HIS BANK ACCOUNT STATEM ENT WHICH IS ALREADY ON RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSM ENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED. 4. IN PARA 6.1 OF HER COMMENTS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS CONTENDED THAT 'WHEN THE ASSESSMENT IS GETTING BARRED BY LIMITATION AND THE ASSESSEE IS USING DIELECTRIC TACTICS IN FURNISHING THE REQUIRED INFORMATION AND DETAILS ETC., THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT TO THE BEST OF HIS JUDGMENT ON THE FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD.' SIR, I FULLY AGREE WITH OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LE ARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED ASSESSING O FFICER DID NOT CONSIDER THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT AVAILABLE ON HER RECORD. IN THE FOLLOWING CASES, IT WAS HELD THAT IN MAKING A BEST JUDGMENT ASSESSMENT, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER DOES NOT POSSESS ABSOLUTE ARBITRARY AUTHORITY TO ASSESS ANY FIGURE H E LIKES BUT SHALL HAVE REASONABLE NEXUS TO THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL AND CIRCUMSTANCES O F EACH CASE. 8. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS : 1. CIT V. RANICHERRA TEA CO. LTD. [L994] 207 ITR 979 (CAL.) 2. ITO V. JITENDER MEHRA (1995) 53 ITD 396 (DEL-T RIB.) ) 9. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION S OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE REPORT OF THE AO, SUSTAINED THE AD DITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 3.1 GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 RELATES TO ADDITION O F RS. 20,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS MENTIONED THAT AS PER INFORMATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS. 20,00,000/- WITH HDFC BANK DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. THE CASE WAS REOPENED AND NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED AFT ER RECORDING THE REASONS/FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURE AS PER LAW. IN RESP ONSE, AS PER THE AO, NO RETURN WAS FILED AND NO COMPLIANCE WAS MADE TO THE VARIOUS NOTICES AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO THEREFORE PROCEEDED TO COM PLETE THE ASSESSMENT U/S 144 ITA NO. 38/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 9 OF 12 BY TREATING THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 20 LACS AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NO EXPLANATION TO OFFER ABOUT THE SOURCE OF CAS H WHICH REMAINED UNEXPLAINED, TO BE TREATED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY TH E AO AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE AR DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAVE BEE N CONSIDERED. THE AR AS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 20 LACS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 10 LACS ONLY ON 18. 03.2011 IN HIS HDFC BANK ACCOUNT NO. 01561000199117. HOWEVER, IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN STATED ABOUT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT IN THE SUBMISSION FILED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE AR SUBMITTED THAT NO ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCE ARE BEING FILED AND CONTENDED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT IS ALREADY ON THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSESSM ENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED. IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE AO MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF I NFORMATION FROM TWO DIFFERENT SOURCES I.E. AIR & CIB AND ARGUED THAT THE AO WITHO UT VERIFYING THE FACTS FROM THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT, MADE ADDITION O F RS. 20 LACS AND THE AR PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MAY BE RESTRICTED TO ACTUAL DEPOS IT OF RS. 10 LACS. THE AR HAS MENTIONED THAT SIMILAR OTHER INSTANCES HAVE INCURRE D IN THE AREA AND TABULATED SOME CASES CLAIMING THAT THE ACTUAL CASH DEPOSIT IN THOSE CASES WAS LESS THAN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. IT IS HOWEVER RELEVANT TO NOTE THAT THIS CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR ALLOWING THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, AS THE FAC TS OF EACH CASE ARE DIFFERENT AND IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT THE MISTAKE WHICH OCCURRED IN OTHER CASES HAS OCCURRED IN THIS CASE ALSO. THE AO HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE RE WAS INFORMATION ABOUT THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 20 LACS IN THE HDFC BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AR HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAME. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE JUSTIFICATION, THE CASH DEPOSIT REMAINS UNEXPLAINED, TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE AD DITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 10. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAISED ANOTHER GROUND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH READ AS UNDER : THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE BANK DEPOSIT AS INCOME OF ASSESSEE AS THE DEPOSIT WAS MADE OUT OF T HE SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. 11. THE AFORESAID GROUND WAS REJECTED BY THE LD. C IT(A) BY OBSERVING THAT NO ARGUMENTS HAD BEEN PUT FORWARD BY THE ASSESSEE. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A N APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ADMISSION OF THE AD DITIONAL ITA NO. 38/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 10 OF 12 EVIDENCES, WHICH READ AS UNDER : I WISH TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE YOUR HONOUR: - 1. THE COPY OF AGREEMENT TO SELL ENTERED BY ME FOR PUR CHASE OF PLOT ALONG WITH TRANSLATED COPY IN ENGLISH. 2. THE COPY OF MY BANK ACCOUNT STATEMENT AND MY MOTHER SMT. AVTAR KAUR FROM WHICH PAYMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF ABOVE SAID PLOT WAS MADE. 3. AFFIDAVIT RECEIVED FROM THE BUYER, TO WHOM THE ABOV E SAID PLOT WAS FURTHER SOLD ON THE BASIS OF HIS AGREEMENT TO SELL WITH ORIGINAL SE LLER, ALONG WITH TRANSLATED COPY IN ENGLISH. 4. THE COPY OF REGISTERED DEED OF THE ABOVE SAID PLOT IN FAVOR OF ULTIMATE BUYER ALONG WITH TRANSLATED COPY IN ENGLISH. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT I AM IS AN AGR ICULTURIST AND HAD DEPOSITED RS 10.00 LAKHS IN MY BANK ACCOUNT NUMBER 01561000199117 WITH HDFC BANK. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECEIVED INFORMATION, REGARDI NG CASH TRANSACTION, FROM TWO SOURCES, I.E. AIR AND CIB, AND BOTH THESE SOURCES H AD REVEALED THAT I HAD DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 10.00 LAKHS IN MY BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.20.00 LAKHS IN M Y CASE. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REOPENED THE CASE TO VERIFY THE CASH DE POSITION OF RS.20.00 LAKHS WHEREAS I HAD DEPOSITED RS. 10.00 LAKHS ONLY IN MY BANK ACCOU NT WITH HDFC BANK. SINCE I AM AN AGRICULTURIST AND IS NOT AWARE OF THE PROCEEDINGS O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, I HAD GIVEN THE NOTICES OF INCOME TAX TO MY COUNSEL ADVOCATE SHAHI. HOWEVER, HE NEITHER GAVE ANY INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROCEEDINGS TO ME NOR DEMANDE D ANY INFORMATION FROM ME REGARDING THE CASE. THEREFORE, THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER, COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT EX-PARTE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND CHARGED THE AMOUNT OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.20.00 LAKHS, AS PE R INFORMATION OF AIR AND CIB, AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT. ALSO, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER DID NOT DISCLOSE THE DATE WISE DETAILS OF CASH DEPOSITED BY ME IN MY BANK ACCOUNT. INFACT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAD CONFIRMED IN HIS REMAND REPORT TO THE C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAD RECEIVED INFOR MATION IN THIS CASE, REGARDING CASH TRANSACTION, FROM AIR AND CIB AND BOTH THESE SOURCES HAD REVEALED THAT I HAD DEPOSITED CASH AMOUNTING TO 3.00 LAKHS IN MY BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE AN ADDITION OF RS.20.00 LAKHS WAS MADE IN MY CASE. THE RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON JURISDICTIONAL PUNJA B & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR VS ADDL. CIT JALANDHAR, INCOME TAX APPEAL NO 54 OF 2010 DATE OF ORDER DATED 29-07-2016. THE HON'BLE HIGH CO URT IN PARA 17 HELD THAT THE DECISION OF REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN FORM OF REVENUE RECORD IS INCORRECT & CASED ON INCORRECT FI NDING OF LAW & OF FACT. WE ALSO SUBMIT THAT THE CHANDIGARH ITAT HAS GIVEN SERIES OF JUDGMENTS FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE GOES TO THE ROOT OF CASE & IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE ADMITTED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE I SUBMIT THAT THERE WAS REASONABLE & SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT SUBMITTING THE DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS. THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE JURISDICTIONAL PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT JUDGMENT IN CASE OF CIT VS. MUKTA METAL WORKS, 336 ITR 555 (P&H). ITA NO. 38/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 11 OF 12 IN VIEW OF ABOVE I REQUEST YOUR HONOUR TO PLEASE AD MIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE GIVE ME THE RELIEF AS PER THE ACT. THANKING YOU, YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- GOVINDERJIT SINGH 13. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMEN T U/S 144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS IN RIGHT PERSPECTIVE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NEW EVIDE NCES NOW FURNISHED GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROCURE THE SAME EARLIER, THEREFORE , THESE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES MAY BE ADMITTED IN THE INTERES T OF JUSTICE. THE RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGEMENT OF THE HON 'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MUK TA METAL WORKS REPORTED AT 336 ITR 555. IN HER RIVAL SUBMIS SIONS, THE LD. SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AMPLE OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN BY THE AO AND THE LD. CIT(A) BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE EVIDENCES WHICH WERE FURNISHED NOW, THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY NOT BE ADMITTED. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTI ES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE P RESENT CASE, ITA NO. 38/CHD/2020 A.Y. 2011-12 PAGE 12 OF 12 IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAM ED BY THE AO EX-PARTE U/S 144 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED NEW EVIDENCES WHICH WERE NOT AVAILABLE EITHER TO TH E AO OR THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, THESE DOCUMENTS NOW FURNISHED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY THE ASSESSEE GO TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER, THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES O F NATURAL JUSTICE, THE SAME ARE TO BE ADMITTED. HOWEVER, AS T HESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT BEFORE THE AO OR THE LD. CIT(A), WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS CASE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO TH E ASSESSEE. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 18 TH NOVEMBER,2020. SD/- SD/- ( RAJPAL YADAV) ( N.K. SAINI) / VICE PRESIDENT / VICE PRESIDENT DATED : 18 TH NOVEMBER,2020. POONAM &) +, -,/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' E/ CIT 4. ' E ()/ THE CIT(A) 5. ,KL M , $ M , OPQLR/ DR, I TAT, CHANDIGARH 6. LQ W#/ GUARD FILE