Smt. Harman Preet Kaur, Faridkot V. The Income-tax Officer, Faridkot

ITA 429/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 42920914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-06-2014
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 17-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 429 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 PAN: ADVPK0813H SMT. HARMAN PREET KAUR, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, D/O-SHRI SADHU SINGH, STREET NO. 3, WARD-III(4), FARIDKOT HARINDRA NAGAR, FARIDKOT (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. P.N. ARORA, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 04.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.06.2014 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, J.M. 1. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN TAKEN: I. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF T HE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), ARE BOT H AGAINST THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND UNTENABLE IN LAW. II. THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN MAK ING AN ADDITION OF RS. 50,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THAT THE ADDITION MAD E IS ILLEGAL, INVALID AND VOID AUTHORITIES BELOW-INITIO AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. III. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. WITHOUT APPLYING H IS MIND. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE A.O. DID NOT ALLOW ANY REASONABLE & PROPER 2 I.T.A. NO. 429 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE MAKING THIS HEAVY UN- CALLED FOR ADDITION AND THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DE LETED. THE A.O. DID NOT ALLOW ANY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD WITHOUT APPLYING HIS MIND AND AS SUCH T HE ADDITION MADE MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. IV. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE APPLICATION MADE UNDER RULE 46A OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE CIT(APPEALS) MISERABLY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS GROSS INJUSTIC E AS NO PROPER & REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS ALLOWED BY THE A.O. THAT THE A.O. WAS NEVER IN POSSESSION OF THE MATERIAL WHICH HE WANTED TO USE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE. IT MEANS THERE WAS NO MATER IAL WITH THE A.O. BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITION AND AS SUC H THE ADDITION MADE MAY BE DELETED. V. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ON 14/11/2011, THE A.O. ONLY ASKED THE SOURCE OF CA SH OF RS. 50,00,000/- WITHOUT GIVING THE DETAILS WHERE TH IS DEPOSIT WAS MADE. THUS NO PROPER & REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD WAS ALLOWED AND LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FURNISHED BEFORE HIM UNDER RULE 46A AND TH ERE WAS NO REASON FOR REJECTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. VI. THAT LEARNED A.O. WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,00,000/- WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THAT THE A.O. AS WELL AS THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) MISERABLY FAILE D TO APPRECIATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING A NY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND AS SUCH THERE WAS NO REASON A ND OCCASION IN INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 O F THE INCOME-TAX, ACT, 1961. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE AND AS SUCH THE ADDITION MADE MAY BE DELETED. VII. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATED THAT THIS DEPOSIT OF RS. 50,00,000/- WAS A GENUINE DEPO SIT IN THE BANKS AND NECESSARY EVIDENCE WAS DULY PRODUCED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS), AND THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW FAILED TO APPRECIATE ALL THE FACTS AND RATHER THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE 3 I.T.A. NO. 429 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 EVIDENCE WHICH WAS PRODUCED BEFORE HIM AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. AS SUCH THE ADDITION IS NOT CALLED FOR AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 3. GROUND NO. 1. IS GENERAL. 4. GROUND NO. 4 STATES THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRE D IN NOT ADMITTING THE ASSESSEES APPLICATION FOR ADDITI ON EVIDENCE. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS FO UND THAT THE A.O. AT NO STAGE REFUSED TO ADMIT ANY EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO MAKE OUT ANY CASE THAT SHE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS CALLED TO PRODUCED BY THE A.O. AND FURTHER THAT SHE WAS ALSO PREVENTED BY A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFO RE THE A.O. ANY EVIDENCE WHICH WAS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FURTHER, FROM THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORD ER, IT IS FOUND THAT STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED O N 24.08.2010 FIXING THE CASE FOR 08.09.2010. ON 08.09 .2010, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS NOR S OUGHT ANY ADJOURNMENT. THE CASE WAS AGAIN FIXED FOR HEARI NG ON 24.09.2010 WHEN SHRI JAGWINDER SINGH, HUSBAND OF TH E ASSESSEE, ATTENDED THE OFFICE AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMEN T FOR 27.09.2010. HOWEVER, ON 27.09.2010, NONE ATTENDED T HE PROCEEDINGS NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. THEREAFTER, A QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 11.11.2010 SEEKIN G INFORMATION WAS ALSO SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AND T HE HEARING WAS FIXED FOR 23.11.2010. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS ALSO FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 02.12.2010, 10.12.20 10, 21.12.2010, 28.12.2010, 25.05.2011, 03.06.2011, 18.07.2011, 04.08.2011, 20.10.2011, 04.11.2011, 14.11.2011, 23.11.2011 AND FINALLY FOR 08.12.2011 B UT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON MAJORITY OF THE AFORESAID DATES WERE ATTENDED BY SHRI DINESH GUPTA, CA, SHRI GAUTAM BANSAL, ADVOCATE, SHRI SANJEEV ARORA, ADVOCATE AND SHRI 4 I.T.A. NO. 429 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 JAGWINDER SINGH, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THES E DETAILS, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT SUFFICIENT OPP ORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT BUT NO REPLY IN THIS R EGARD WAS FILED. IN HIS REMAND REPORT BEARING NO. 1312 DATED 15.03.2013, THE A.O. HAS ALSO STATED THAT SINCE SUF FICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS, WHICH HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN AND THUS THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO PRODUCE ANY OTHER EVIDENCE EXCEPT THE ONE ALREAD Y PRODUCED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY , THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 250 OF THE IT ACT, 1961 READ WITH RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 CANNOT BE ENTER TAINED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY REJECTED. 5. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID OBSERVATIONS OF LEARN ED CIT(A) SHOW THAT THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVI DENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED FOR THE REASONS THAT A CCORDING TO LEARNED CIT(A), SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE SO URCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNABLE TO DO SO. DESPITE AS MANY AS 14 OPPORTUNITIES HAVING BEEN GRANTED TO HER FOR THE SA ID PURPOSE, I.E., TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE, ACCORDING TO LEARNED CIT( A), THEREFORE, THE APPLICATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE ENTERTAINED. 6. CHALLENGING THE CIT(A)S ORDER ON THIS ISSUE, LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED BEFORE US TH AT THE FACT 5 I.T.A. NO. 429 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 OF THE MATTER IS THAT IT WAS ONLY ON 14.11.2011, FO R THE FIRST TIME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO E XPLAIN THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 49 LACS IN THE SAVING BANK ACCO UNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED WITH AXIS BANK. IN THIS REGARD, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, MAKING POINTED MENTION THAT AS PE R PARA 2 THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF STATED T HAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING ON 14.11.2011, THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO E XPLAIN THE SOURCE AND EVIDENCE FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 49,00,000/- DURING THE YEAR IN THE SAVING BANK ACCO UNT MAINTAINED WITH AXIS BANK. ATTENTION HAS ALSO B EEN ATTRACTED TO PAGE NO. 42 OF THE ASSESSEES PAPER BO OK WHICH IS COPY OF THE ORDER-SHEET ENTRIES IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE THIRD LAST ENTRY READS AS UNDER: 14/11/201 ADVOCATE GAUTAM BANSAL ADVOCATE APPEARED. HE IS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF EVIDENCE OF CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 4900000. CASE ADJOURNED FOR 23/11/2011. 7. ACCORDING TO LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, T HEREFORE, LEARNED CIT(A) IS WRONG IN OBSERVING THAT SUFFICIEN T OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE T O LEAD EVIDENCE ON THE 6 I.T.A. NO. 429 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ISSUE OF CASH DEPOSITS, INASMUCH AS, AFTER BEING AS KED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS AS, FOR THE FIRST TIME , ONLY ON 14.11.2011, ONLY TWO DATES WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE, I.E., 23.11.2011 AND 08.12.2011. ON 23.11.2011, THE COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASKED FOR AN ADJOURNMENT. HOWEVER, ON 08.12.2011, NONE ATTENDED THE PROCEEDIN GS AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 09.12.2011. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCE SOUGHT TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), WAS NOT IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IT WAS THIS THAT NECESSITATED THE FILING OF THE SAID APPLICATION. IT HAS BEEN CONTENDED THAT SINCE, AS PATENT ON RECORD, SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AND THE LEAR NED CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. 8. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, SEEKING SUPPO RT FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN THIS REGARD, HAS STRONGLY OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THA T AS AVAILABLE FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF TH E INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, AFTER WHICH, ON 08.09.2010 NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE ASSES SING OFFICER. THEREAFTER, ANOTHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS SERVED ON 7 I.T.A. NO. 429 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE ASSESSEE ON 23.09.2010, FOR 24.09.2010. ON 24.0 9.2010, THE HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED AND ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT , WHICH WAS GRANTED FOR 27.09.2010. ON 27.09.2010, NONE ATTENDED. LATER ON, NOTICES UNDER SECTION 142(1) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT ALONG WITH A D ETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WERE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 20.11.2010 FIXING TH E CASE FOR 23.11.2010. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING AFTER 23 .11.2010 ON 02.12.2010, 10.12.2010, 21.12.2010, 28.12.2010, 25. 05.2011, 03.06.2011, 18.07.2011, 04.08.2011, 20.10.2011, 04 .11.2011, 14.11.2011, 23.11.2011 AND 08.12.2011. THUS, DESPIT E 14 EFFECTIVE OPPORTUNITIES, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE NECE SSARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HER CASE. IT WAS, THEREFORE, THAT THE LE ARNED CIT(A) CORRECTLY REJECTED THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO LEARNED DR, MOREOVER, AS PER GROUND NO . 4 OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT APPRECIATE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN EXPRESSING HER INABILITY TO EXPLAIN SOURCE AND EVID ENCE OF RS. 49 LACS DEPOSITED IN AXIS BANK WHICH DOES NOT BELONG TO HER . THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS HERSELF EXPRESSED HER INABILITY TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AND ALSO THE EVIDENCE OF RS. 49 LACS, WHICH IS CLEARLY AN ADMISS ION ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT SHE DID NOT HAVE ANY EX PLANATION OR EVIDENCE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RIGHT IN MAKIN G THE ADDITION. SUCH 8 I.T.A. NO. 429 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ADMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE LEAVES NO SCOPE FOR ANY G RIEVANCE AS SOUGHT TO BE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OTHER GROUNDS OF A PPEAL TAKEN BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. A WRITTEN SUBMISSION TO THIS EFFECT HAS A LSO BEEN FILED BY LEARNED DR. 9. THE LEARNED DR HAS ALSO STRESSED THE FACT THAT U NDISPUTEDLY, DESPITE HAVING SOUGHT AN ADJOURNMENT ON 23.11.2011 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPLAINING THE SOURCE AND EVIDENCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 49 LACS WITH AXIS BANK, NOBODY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 08.12.2 011, THE DATE FOR WHICH THE ADJOURNMENT STOOD GRANTED AND IT IS FROM THIS, COUPLED WITH THE EARLIER NON-COOPERATIVE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE FO R AS MANY AS 14 LONG DATES; THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED AND RIG HTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY IN THE MATTER. AS PER L EARNED DR, IN THESE FACTS, LEARNED CIT(A) VERY RIGHTLY REFUSED TO ENTER TAIN THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, TAKING THE TOTALITY OF THE FAC TS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING THE ASSESSING OFFICERS REPORT INTO CONSI DERATION AND OBSERVING THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY WAS ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT, WHICH SHE COULD NOT EXPLAIN. 10. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. IT REMAINS UNDISPUTED AND PATENT ON RECO RD THAT IT WAS ONLY ON 9 I.T.A. NO. 429 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 14.11.2011, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AND FURNISH EVIDENCE FOR THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 49 LACS IN HER SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH THE AXI S BANK. THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED FOR THE SAID PURPOSES TO 23.11.2011. ON 23.11.2011, AN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT. THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 0 8.12.2011. ON 08.12.2011, NONE APPEARED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY IN THE MATTER AND PASSE D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THE VERY NEXT DATE I.E. 09.12.2011 MAKING THE AD DITION. 11. THE LEARNED CIT(A), IN CONCLUDING THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO MAKE OUT ANY CASE THAT SHE WAS PREVENT ED FROM SUFFICIENT CAUSES FROM PRODUCING THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE, HAS O BSERVED AS UNDER: FROM THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS NOTICE D THAT THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING FOR 16 TIMES DURING THE PERIOD F ROM 08.09.2010 TO 08.12.2011. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT COULD NOT EXPLAI N THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANKS NOR TENDERED ANY EXPLANA TION IN THIS REGARD. COMPLETE DETAILS OF DATES OF HEARING HAVE BEEN MENT IONED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH, WHILE DEALING WITH APPLICATION UNDER RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENC E, AND THE SAME ARE NOT BEING REPEATED HERE FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. FR OM THE SAID DETAILS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY WAS NOT AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 50.00 LACS. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS R EJECTED. 12. THUS, WHAT HAS WEIGHED WITH THE LEARNED CIT(A) I N REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IS THAT EVE N THOUGH THE CASE HAD BEEN FIXED FOR HEARING ON 16 DATES DURING THE PERIO D FROM 08.09.2010 TO 08.12.2011 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESS EE COULD NOT EXPLAIN 10 I.T.A. NO. 429 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSITS. LEARNED CIT(A) OBS ERVED THAT AS SUCH, IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORT UNITY WAS NOT AFFORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE AFORESAID CONCLUS ION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS INCORRECT. AS TAKEN NOTE OF, IT W AS ONLY ON 14.11.2011, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS, FOR THE FIRST TIME, ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PRODUCE THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE. AN ADJOURNMENT WAS SOUGHT FOR THE PURPOSE, WHICH WAS GRANTED. ON THE ADJOURNED DATE, NONE APPEARED AND ON THE NEXT DATE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER GOT TO BE PA SSED. 14. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE NO N-APPEARANCE ON 08.12.2011 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE BEEN GRANTED ANOTHER OPPORTUNIT Y, WHICH WAS NOT DONE. SO, EFFECTIVELY, THE ASSESSEE WAS GRANTED TWO DATES FOR PRODUCING THE REQUISITE EVIDENCE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCEPTAN CE/REJECTION OF THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE EARLIER DA TES ON WHICH THE CASE WAS FIXED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ARE IMMATER IAL. 15. IN THE ABOVE FACTS, GROUND NO. 4 RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IS ACCEPTED. THE APPLICATION FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ADMITTED AND THE MATTE R IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF LEARNED CIT(A) TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCO RDANCE WITH LAW, ON TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 11 I.T.A. NO. 429 (ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 THE ASSESSEE SHALL, NO DOUBT, COOPERATE WITH LEARNE D CIT(A) IN THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE MATTER HAS BEEN REMANDED TO THE LEARNED CIT(A), AS ABOVE, THE REMAINING GROUNDS DO NOT REQUIRE TO B E GONE INTO AND WE ARE NOT DOING SO. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED, AS INDICATED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4 TH JUNE, 2014 SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4 TH JUNE, 2014 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SMT. HARMAN PREET KAUR, D/O-SHRI SADH U SINGH, STREET NO. 3, HARINDRA NAGAR, FARIDKOT 2. ITO, WARD-III(4), FARIDKOT 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.