Sh. Mohinder Singh Rattanpal, Jalandhar V. Income Tax Officer, Phagwara

ITA 606/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8807 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BHAWANI SHANKARDR
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Peak credit; Corroborative evidences

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH: (CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALANDHAR) BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NO. 606/ASR/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) SH. MOHINDER SINGH RATTANPAL H. NO. 89, TEHANG ROAD, VILLAGE SAIFABAD, PHILLAUR, JALANDHAR. PAN NO.AIPPR4180B (ASSESSEE) VS .. ITO, WARD-2 PHAGWARA. (REVENUE) ASSESSEE BY SHRI . ANIL MIGLANI, AR. REVENUE BY SHRI BHAWANI SHANKAR,DR. ORDER PER, A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009- 10, TAKING THESE GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS AGAINST LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE ON THE FILE. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) GRAVELY ERRED IN UP HOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,30,000/- MADE BY THE AO IGNOR ING THE DATE OF HEARING 18.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20.01.2017 I.T.A NO. 606/ASR/2016 2 DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM AND NOT PROPE RTY CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED BY PASSIN G A NON- SPEAKING ORDER DESPITE THE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS ON HIS FILE. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DID NOT ALLOW PROPE R OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER . 2. AS PER THE RECORD, THE ASSESSEE IS DERIVING INC OME FROM PLYING OF TRUCK AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HE IS MAINTAINING A SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH INDIAN BANK. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH D EPOSIT AMOUNTING TO RS.26,76,000/-. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.24,30,00 0/- BEING PEAK BALANCE OF THE ACCOUNT. THE LD. CIT(A), IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, UPH ELD THE ADDITION OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, BUT HE DID NOT ATTEND ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING AND HE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE A PPEAL; AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE T HE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED T HAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITION WRONGLY MADE BY THE AO, IGNO RING THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE HIM AND NOT PROPERLY CONSIDER ING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FURNISHED; THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PASSING A N ON-SPEAKING ORDER DESPITE THE WRITTEN ARGUMENT; AND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT A LLOW PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER UN DER APPEAL. I.T.A NO. 606/ASR/2016 3 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR HAS PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT DESPITE HAVING FILE D WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ATTEND ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING BEFORE HIM AND HE WAS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPEAL. HE ALSO HELD THA T ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY SUPPORTING EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCES OF THE CASH DEPOSITS. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED TO HAVE FILED THE FOLLOW ING BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A): I) COPY OF BANK STATEMENT GIVING INFORMATION OF DEPOSI T AND WITHDRAWAL. II) COPY OF AGREEMENT RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF ADVANCE RECEIVED FO R SALE OF PROPERTY, WHEREIN IT STANDS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS TO B E SOLD FOR RS.35 LACS AND AS ADVANCE, AN AMOUNT OF RS.22 LACS WAS RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN CASH ON 19.11.2008. III) BANK CERTIFICATE DATED 07.11.2011, WHEREIN THE BANK HAD CERTIFIED THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE TRANSFERRED FROM THE ASSESSEE S ACCOUNT TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE PURCHASER OF THE PROPERTY, I.E., SHRI BEANT SINGH, ON 20.11.2008. 7. AS SUCH, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ORDER UNDER APPE AL HAS BEEN PASSED OBLIVION OF THE MATERIAL PLACED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND AS SU CH, WITHOUT AFFORDING DUE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE HIS C ASE. 8. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THIS AP PEAL IS REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A), TO BE DECIDED AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW, ON CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSE E. THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE I.T.A NO. 606/ASR/2016 4 AFFORDED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND THE AS ESSEE, NO DOUBT, SHALL CO- OPERATE IN THE FRESH PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 9. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES, THE APP EAL IS TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20/01/2017. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN) ACCOUTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 20 /01/2017 *AKV* ON TOUR COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT BY ORDER AR/SR.P.S./P.S.