Manjeet Singh S/o Sh. Harbir Singh, Ludhiana V. ITO, Ludhiana

ITA 546/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5829 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 28-03-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, B, CHANDIGARH , ! . .., # $, %& BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NO. 546/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SH. MANJEET SINGH, S/O SH. HARBIR SINGH, R/O 1460, WARD NO.8, VPO GAHLEWAL, PO JODEWAL, LUDHIANA THE ITO, WARD III (4), LUDHIANA ./PAN NO: CDEPS4087A / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL, ADVOCATE ' ! / REVENUE BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH SR.DR # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 13.12.2018 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.12. 2018 DATE OF RELEASE OF ORDER : 28.01.2019 %' / ORDER PER SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 08.09.2016 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS )- 1 , LUDHIANA [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)]. 2. THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRED BY 8 DAYS. A SEPARATE APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY HAS BEEN FILED, WHEREIN, IT H AS BEEN PLEADED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS RESIDING AT USA, THE APPEAL P APERS WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS SIGNATURES WHICH THEREAFTER WERE D ULY SENT BACK TO INDIA TO FILE THE PRESENT APPEAL. IN THE PROCESS, A SHORT DA Y OF 8 DAYS HAS OCCURRED WHICH WAS NOT INTENTIONAL BUT DUE TO THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES. ITA NO. 546-C-2017- SHRI MANJEET SINGH, LUDHIANA 2 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE PLEA AND SHORTNESS OF THE DE LAY IN FILING THE APPEAL, THE DELAY IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS HEREBY C ONDONED. 3. NOW COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE. THE ASSESS EE HAS AGITATED THE TWO ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INTO TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FIRST ADDITION IS ON ACCOUNT OF AN AM OUNT OF RS. 38 LACS DEPOSITED INTO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SECOND ADDITION IS REGARDING CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 28.65 LACS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE THE SOU RCE OF DEPOSITS OF AFORESAID AMOUNT. HE, THEREFORE, TREATED THE ABOVE SAID DEPOSITS AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT BOTH THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES I.E. ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE AP PELLATE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ARE EX.PARTE ORDERS. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAINED T HAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RESIDING OUT OF INDIA, THE ASSESSEE HAD E NTRUSTED THE MATTER FOR LOOKING AFTER HIS CASE TO HIS EARLIER COUNSEL SHRI ANIL SOOD, HOWEVER, THE SAID COUNSEL DID NOT TAKE THE MATTER SERIOUSLY AND DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS AND WHEN CALLED FOR, RESULTING INTO EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS WELL EX-PARTE IMPUGNED OR DER OF THE CIT(A). 5. THE LD. COUNSEL HAS SUBMITTED THAT SO FAR AS TH E ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF RS. 38 LACS ALLEGEDLY RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUE IS CONCERNED, THE SAID CHEQUE WAS NOT HONOURED AND WAS RETURNED DISHONORE D TO THE DEPOSITOR. HENCE, NO AMOUNT THROUGH CHEQUES GOT DEPOSITED, BUT ONLY AN ENTRY OF DEPOSIT WAS MADE ON PRESENTATION OF CHEQUES BEFORE CLEARANCE HOWEVER, ITA NO. 546-C-2017- SHRI MANJEET SINGH, LUDHIANA 3 THE CHEQUE WAS DISHONORED AND THE ENTRY WAS REVERSE D. SO FAR AS THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 28.65 LACS IS CONCERNED, THE LD. COU NSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS MOTHER WHO IN COURSE HAD RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNT O UT OF THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE LAND. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS A FAIR CASE AND HE COULD SUBSTANTIATE HIS AVERMENTS BY PRESENTING EVIDENCE. THAT NON-APPEARANCE BEFORE TH E LOWER AUTHORITIES AND NON SUBMISSION OF THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE WAS NOT IN TENTIONAL BUT DUE TO THE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES. 6. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HAS VEHEMENTLY R ELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO APPEAR AS AND WHEN CALLED FOR. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ADMITT EDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN RESIDING OUT OF INDIA AND HAD ENTRUSTED TH E MATTER TO HIS COUNSEL WHO FAILED TO APPEAR AND FURNISH NECESSARY EVIDENCE AS AND WHEN CALLED FOR BY THE INCOME-TAX AUTHORITIES. AS EXPLAINED BY TH E ASSESSEE, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 38 LACS WAS NEVER GOT DEPOSITED IN HIS ACCOU NT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT HE CAN WELL FURNISH THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT OF RS. 28.65 LACS. IN OUR VIEW, INTEREST OF JUSTICE WILL BE WELL SERVED IF THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CA SE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE MATTER IS RESTOR ED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSMENT AFRESH IN ACCORDAN CE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL GIVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PRESENT HIS CASE. AT THE SAME TIME, TH E ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED ITA NO. 546-C-2017- SHRI MANJEET SINGH, LUDHIANA 4 TO BE PRESENT EITHER HIMSELF OR THROUGH IS COUNSEL AS AND WHEN CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE ABOVE TERMS, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER DICTATED AND PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IMM EDIATELY ON COMPLETION OF HEARING. SD/- SD/- ( . . , # $ / B.R.R. KUMAR) %& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 28.01.2019 .. '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR