Smt. Surinder Kaur Badal, Distt. Muktsar. V. The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax., Bathinda

ITA 422/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8802 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K SHARDA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [ I.T.A NO. 442(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 IQBAL SINGH S/O SH. ZORA SINGH NEAQR OCTROI CHUNGI, BATHINDA ROAD, SRI MUKTSAR SAHIB. PAN:AQTPS4925M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-II(2), MUKTSAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. ASHWANI KUMAR (CA. ) RESPONDENT BY: SH. R.K. SHARDA (DR .) DATE OF HEARING: 29.02. 2016 DATE OF PRONO UNCEMENT: 04.03.2016 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A), DATED 7.03. 2013, FOR ASST. YEAR: 2009-10. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. (I) THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), BATHINDA WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO ARBITRARILY UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS.23,90,000/- O N ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND ALSO RS. 42,984/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ACCRUED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. (II) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO ADJUDICATE ON TH E GROUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT DESERVED TO BE QUASHED AS WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT, PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE WERE GROSSLY VIOLATED . (III) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO PASS AN ORDER WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE REMAND REPORT VIDE WHICH HE HAD ALL OWED THE ITA NO.442 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEAR:2009-10 2 APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SH. JAGJI T SINGH AND SH. KAMALJIT SINGH. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT LEA RNED CIT(A) IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS HAD REQUIRED ASSESS ING OFFICER TO SUBMIT A REMAND REPORT BUT INSTEAD OF WAITING FOR THE REMA ND REPORT HE PASSED AN ORDER ON 7.03.2013 WHEREAS THE REMAND REPORT IS DATED 12.04.2013 AND IN THIS RESPECT FILED A COPY OF REMAND REPORT D ATED 12.04.2013. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN A SPEC IFIC GROUND BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) AS GROUNDS OF APPEAL VIDE GROUND NO. 3 FOR NOT GETTING OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSONS ON THE STA TEMENT OF WHICH ADDITION WAS MADE BUT LEARNED CIT(A) DID NOT ADJUDI CATE ON THE ABOVE. EXPLAINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE THE LEARNED AR SUB MITTED THAT THIS WAS A CASE WHERE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE AN ADDITION O F RS.23,90,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSIT OF CASH IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT W HICH THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM SH. JAGJIT SING H AND SH. KAMALJIT SINGH. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER TAKING STATEMENT FROM THE SAID PERSONS MADE THE ADDITION AND ASSESSEE WAS NOT PROVIDED OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SAME. 4. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON T HE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT VIDE GROUND NO.3, THE ASSESSEE BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS TAKEN SPECIFIC GROUND TO CROSS EXAMINE SH. KAMALJIT SINGH & SH. JAGJIT SINGH FROM WHOM THE ASS ESSEE HAD CLAIMED ITA NO.442 (ASR)/2013 ASST. YEAR:2009-10 3 TO HAVE RECEIVED THE MONEY BUT LD. CIT(A) DID NOT A DJUDICATE ON THE ABOVE GROUND. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT( A) ALSO WANTED ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBMIT A REMAND REPORT WHICH H E HAD SUBMITTED ON 12.04.2013 WHEREAS THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS PASSED TH E ORDER ON 07.03.2013 BEFORE RECEIPT OF REMAND REPORT. THEREFO RE, KEEPING IN VIEW, THE RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO SET ASIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE OFFICE OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WOULD PROVID E ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSONS FROM WHOM ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE MONEY AND WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH MARCH, 2016. SD/- SD/- (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT ME MBER DATED:04.03.2016. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.