Surjan Singh, G. Noida UP V. ITO ward-3(4), Noida

ITA 4443/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9678 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 14-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 68; 148; 250

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 4443/Del/2019 Surjan Singh IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 4443/DEL/2019 (A.Y 2010-11) Shri Surjan Singh, Vill. Junpat Greater Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh – 203 207. PAN No. DRPPS5980G (APPELLANT) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward : 3 (4) Noida. (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal is filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-11 against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Noida, dated 29.10.2018. Assessee by : Shri Raghu Raj Singh, Advocate; Department by: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. D. R.; Date of Hearing 27.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 29.09.2022 2 ITA No. 4443/Del/2019 Surjan Singh 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under:- “1. That the facts and circumstances of the case in Law, the Hon'ble CIT(Appeal) had erred in confirming the income assessed of the appellant by Ld AO at Rs. 88,58,919.00/,instead of returned income of Rs Nil,as such aggregate addition of Rs 88,58,919.00- please be deleted. 2. That the Hon'ble CIT failed to appreciate the fact that the addition made by the Ld. Assessing officer were made without getting proper opportunity and Hon'ble CIT passed appellate order u/s 250 of Income Tax Act for not comply u/ s 249(4) b of the I T Act, 1961. 3. That the Hon'ble CIT (Appeal) had erred on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in making an addition of Rs. 88,58,919.00/ on account of unexplained cash deposited- being wholly based on conjecture and surmises and being untrue, the same must be deleted. 4. Submission made by the Assessee had been totally ignored by Ld CIT -I Noida. The unexplained income of Rs. 88,58,919.00/- was received from asseessee against agreement to sell for sold agriculture land. The same is explained u/ s 68 of the income tax act 1961. Therefore, there cannot be any tax liability as per u / s 68 of Income tax act 1961 . 3 ITA No. 4443/Del/2019 Surjan Singh 5. That the impugned assessment order is arbitrary, illegal, bad in law in violation of rudimentary principal of contemporary jurisprudence. 6. That the provisions of section 271(1) (C) are not applicable in the case of the applicant. 7. That the impugned Assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer, Noida is a clear cut case of misunderstanding and wrong interpretation of Law.” 3. The assessee is an agriculturist who had deposited cash aggregating to Rs. 1,07,37,000/- during the Assessment Year 2010-11. On the basis of the AIR information, letter were sent to the assessee on the address mentioned in the AIR Information, however, no reply was filed by the assessee. 4. One Sh. Surjan Singh appeared to the show cause notice issued for imposition of penalty u/s 271(1)(b) of the Act. The representative of the assessee has also filed a written reply with some supporting documents but the assessee did not complied that the notice u/s 148 and no return of income has been filed. 5. It is the specific case of the assessee is that the assessee before the A.O that, the assessee had received advance against property from Mr. Balraj Singh of Rs. 65,00,500/- and Mr. Mukesh Kuamr of Rs. 16,25,000/- and the intended purchaser have later denied to purchase the property from the assessee and the assessee has refunded the amount to Mr. Balraj Singh through bank account and by way of cash to Mr. Mukesh Kumar. 6. The Ld. A.O found that the assessee did not produce the evidence regarding agreement for sale of property of the above named persons and also 4 ITA No. 4443/Del/2019 Surjan Singh not filed any confirmation of the above two persons and accordingly made addition by passing assessment order on 23/11/2017. 7. As against the assessment order dated 31/11/2017 the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order on 28/06/2018 by dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee. It is seen from the order of the Ld. CIT(A) that the Ld. CIT(A) except dealing with the issue involved in the appeal, strangely reduced in writing certain unnecessary and irrelevant facts and law and arrived to irrelevant and erroneous conclusion and ultimately dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of jurisdiction. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee has preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above. 9. It is found from the record that the neither the assessee nor the representative of the assessee was present during the course of hearing before the Ld. A.O. The Ld. A.O after considering the written submission of the representative of the assessee, observed that though the cash deposits have been found in the accounts of the assessee to the total tune of Rs. 1,08,63,000/-, but the assessee did not file any evidence regarding agreement for sale of property claimed to have been entered into between the assessee Sh. Balraj Singh and Sh. Mukesh Kumar and made addition. During the appeal proceedings also the Ld. CIT(A) has not given proper opportunity to the A.R and ultimately passed a cryptic order which is impugned in the present appeal. 10. The Ld. DR fairly conceded the fact that the above approach of the Ld. CIT(A) in deciding the appeal filed by the assessee cannot be justified. Further, both Ld. AR and Ld. DR have requested to remand the matter to the file of the A.O for de-novo consideration of the matter. In view of the same, we deem it fit to remand the matter to the file of Ld. A.O for de-novo consideration. Needless 5 ITA No. 4443/Del/2019 Surjan Singh to say, the assessee shall provided with opportunity of being heard. The assessee is hereby directed to cooperate with the assessment proceedings. 11. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on : 29/09/2022 . Sd/- Sd/- ( SHAMIM YAHYA ) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 29/09/2022 *R.N*Sr. PS Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI