SHRI MANJINDER SINGH S/O SHRI SATNAM SINGH, KAPURTHALLA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2, KAPURTHALA

ITA 5/ASR/2018

AI Insights

The case involves Sh. Manjinder Singh, who appealed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar, concerning the Assessment Year 2009-10. The primary contention was the rejection of additional evidence by the CIT(A), which was crucial for substantiating the source of cash deposits amounting to Rs. 29,06,900 in the appellant's bank account. The appellant argued that these funds were from legitimate sources, including cash withdrawals and funds from his father. The Income Tax Officer had initially made additions under sections 69/69A of the Income Tax Act, which the CIT(A) upheld. The tribunal found merit in the appellant's request for a remand to allow the CIT(A) to consider the additional evidence and properly adjudicate the source of the cash deposits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114476 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 04-01-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: HARBANSH SINGH. FURTHER; A COPY OF FORM J
• Section: 147

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. 5/Asr/2018 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Manjinder Singh S/o Satnam Singh, Vill. Dhudianwal, PO.-Bhulana, Distt. Kapurthala [PAN: BUYPS 4803C] (Appellant) V. Income Tax Officer-2, Kapurthala (Respondent) Appellant by : None (Written submission) Respondent by : Sh. Ravinder Mittal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23.02.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 02.03.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar dated 31.10.2017 in respect of Assessment Year 2009-10. ITA No. 5/Asr/2018 Manjinder Singh v. ITO 2 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘CIT(A)], is not justified in rejecting the additional evidence in the shape of Form J pertaining to the father of the assessee as an evidence for the availability of the funds with the father of the assessee and in turn with the. He contended that the ld. CIT(A) has been wrongly in sustaining the addition of Rs. 29,06,900/- made u/s 69/69A by not believing the source of cash deposits in the bank account and thereafter not allowing the benefit of cash deposits out of cash withdrawals, funds of the father and cash in hand. The ld. counsel has objected to the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act as the letter issued by the AO was for verification of final transaction u/s 133(6). He has filed a written submission with case laws comprising with pg. nos. 1 to 70 with a request to remand back the matter to the ld. CIT(A) for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A and adjudicate the issue of source of cash deposit afresh after granting fresh opportunity to the appellant assessee. 3. It is evident from the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) vide para 5.2 that the appellant assessee has filed a bank statement, copy of sale agreement and registration deeds in evidence for the source of cash ITA No. 5/Asr/2018 Manjinder Singh v. ITO 3 filed before the AO (APB pg. 25 to 29), confirming that the cash was handed over to the assessee by Harbansh Singh. Further, a copy of Form J issued by Arathiya (APB pg. 35) which are vital documents for the verification of the source of the cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant assessee has also been filed. 4. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has merely stated that no rebuttal evidence could be filed by the appellant assessee either in the course of assessment proceedings or in the course of present proceedings so as to substantiate the source of cash inflows as stated by the appellant and hold that the source of inflows stated by the appellant are vague in nature. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the material evidence filed to substantiate the source of cash without pointing out any discrepancies in the evidences produced by the appellant by way of Form J of crop sale issued by the Arathiya, affidavit of the fund of cash funds available to the assessee by Sh. Sukhwinder Singh through an affidavit, withdrawal of deposits made in the bank accounts showing the cash flow statement which are vital evidences need to be rebutted while rejecting the claim of the source of the cash deposit in the bank as claimed by the appellant assessee. The ld. DR ITA No. 5/Asr/2018 Manjinder Singh v. ITO 4 though stand by the impugned order but failed to furnish any rebuttal to the contention raised by the assessee. 5. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh after considering the additional evidence available on the record and to be filed in the fresh proceedings before him. The ld. CIT(A) is also directed to grant adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider the evidences produced on record by the appellant to explain its source of cash deposit in its bank account. No doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 02.03.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr./P.S.* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT ITA No. 5/Asr/2018 Manjinder Singh v. ITO 5 (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order