Sh. Jagtar Singh Prop., Faridkot V. The Income tax Officer, Faridkot

ITA 662/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 66220914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Additional evidence
• Section: 142(1); 68; 144

Judgement Text

ITA NO.662(ASR)/2013 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.662(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 PAN :AYZPS0867J SH. JAGTAR SINGH VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PROP. M/S. DELTA HAMMER & CUTTER, WARD-3(4), FARID KOT. FEROZEPUR ROAD, FARIDKOT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:SH. SUDHIR SEHGAL, RESPONDENT BY:SH.TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING:09/03/2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/03/2015 ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, AM: THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BATHINDA, DATED 06.08.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009.10. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1) THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING T HE APPEAL AND UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,00,000/-. 2 2) THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO CONSIDER TH E FACT THAT NO SUFFICIENT/REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO T HE ASSESSEE TO REPRESENT HIS CASE. 3) THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED TO CONSIDER THE FACT THAT THE AO COLLECTED AND RELIED UPON THE INFORMATION FROM T HE BANK AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT TOO AFTER THE LAS T DATE OF HEARING ON 08.12.2011 AND THAT TOO WITHOUT CONFRONT ING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS. 4) NOTWITHSTANDING ABOVE FACTS, THE WORTHY CIT(A) H AS ERRED IN NOT ENTERTAINING AND REJECTING THE VITAL ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WHICH GOES TO THE ROUTE OF THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A). 5) THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDER ING THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE JOINT A/C OF THE A SSESSEE WITH HIS WIFE BELONGED TO HIS WIFE ONLY, WHICH SHE HAS R ECEIVED FROM HER FATHER AT THE TIME OF HEAR MARRIAGE SOLEMNIZED ON 29.06.2008 OUT OF SUFFICIENT FUNDS WITHDRAWN BY HIM FROM HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 6) NOTWITHSTANDING THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5, THE C IT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,00,000/- BEING THE CASH DEPOSITED IN THE JOINT A/C OF THE ASSESSEE WI TH HIS WIFE BY CONSIDERING THE BANK A/C ONLY OF THE ASSESSEE. 7) THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THE FACT THAT THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE LATER ON WITHDREW THE SAID AMO UNT (AS SHE COULD NOT PULL ON WITH THE ASSESSEE) AND HAD PURCHA SED THREE PLOTS IN FARIDKOT WITH THE SAID AMOUNT FOR TOTAL SU M OF RS.16,84,000/- AND THE SAID PURCHASES WERE EVEN MAD E BEFORE THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER I.E. ON 09.12.2011. 8) THAT OTHERWISE THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS NOT CONSIDE RED THAT THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 IS UNCALLED FOR IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE JOINT A/C IN QUESTION IS NOT PART OF THE ACCOUNT BO OKS OF ASSESSEE MAINTAINED FOR THE BUSINESS S PURPOSE OF THE ASSESS EE. 3 9) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOS ED OFF. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AS PER CASS AND SCRUTINY NOT ICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 24.08.2010 AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSE E HAS BEEN SEEKING ADJOURNMENTS ON ONE PRETEXT OR THE ANOTHER AND HAD SUBMITTED CERTAIN DETAILS. IT IS OBSERVED BY THE AO AT PAGE 2 THAT T HE ASSESSEE IS DOING BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING AND SALE OF HARDWARE GOOD S. NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN THIS REGARD HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURIN G THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES UNDER SECTIONS 143(1) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT, SH. DINESH GUPTA, CA, SH. GAUTAM BANSAL ADVOCA TE AND SH. SANJEEV ARORA, ADVOCATE OF THE ASSESSEE ATTENDED THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS FROM TIME TO TIME AND FILED THE INFORMATION AS CALLED FO R DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND INFORMATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY THE TEST CHECK FROM THE DOCUMENTS PRODU CED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WITH P UNJAB & SIND BANK, FARIDKOT AND HDFC BANK, FARIDKOT. ON 23.11.2011, TH E COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS SPECIFICALLY ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOUR CE AND EVIDENCE FOR THE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING RS.16,00,000/- IN PUNJAB & SIND BANK, FARIDKOT 4 AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 08.12.2011. ON 08.12. 2011, NOBODY ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS NOR WRITTEN REPLY WAS RECEIVED. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO SAY IN THE MATTER AND IN TH E MEANTIME, THE INFORMATION WAS CALLED FROM THE MANAGER, PUNJAB & S IND BANK, FARIDKOT, VIDE LETTER NO. 339 DATED 09.12.2011 REGARDING THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH PUNJAB & SIND BANK , WHERE AN AMOUNT OF RS.16 LACS I.E. RS. 7 LACS ON 08.07.2008 AND RS.9 LACS ON 26.07.2008 HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN CASH DURING THE YEAR. THE AO FUR THER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN IN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT S IN THE BANK AND TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGL Y ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE THE RAISED GRO UND THAT NO REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE A ND INFORMATION FROM PUNJAB & SIND BANK, FARIDKOT HAS BEEN CALLED FOR AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME TO THE ASSESSEE. T HE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE. 3.1. REGARDING UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS.16,00,000/-, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ARE REPRODUCED, AS UNDER: 5 FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND TO AVOID REPETITIO N OF FACTS, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT S.NO. 4,5,6 & 7 ARE BEING TAKE N UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO REQUIRED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 23.11.2011 TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AND EV IDENCE OF CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.16,00,000/- (RS.7,00,000/- ON 08.07. 2008 AND RS.9,00,000/- ON 26.07.2008) IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO.921933 MAINTAINED WITH PUNJAB & SIND BANK, FARIDKOT. THE D ATE OF HEARING IN THIS REGARD WAS FIXED FOR 08.12.2011. HOWEVER, O N THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING, NEITHER ANYBODY ATTENDED THE PROCE EDINGS NOR ANY EXPLANATION /EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSIT WAS TENDERED/ADDUCED BY THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO HELD THE AMOUNT OF RS.16,00,000/- AS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME RETURNED. THE LD. A/R OF THE APPELLANT HAS FILED BEFORE ME AN AUDIT REPORT I N THE CASE OF SH. BALWINDER SINGH PROP. M/S. MITHARU GEAR INDUSTRY, F ARIDKOT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2009 TO SHOW THAT HE HAD WITHDRAW N RS.42,69,000/- AND A PART OF IT WAS GIVEN BY HIM TO HIS DAUGHTER SMT. PARVINDER KAUR WHO HAPPENED TO BE THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE. T HAT OUT OF THE SAID AMOUNT, RS.16,00,000/- WERE DEPOSITED BY HER IN THE JOINT ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY HER WITH HER HUSBAND SH. JAGTAR SING H. THIS EVIDENCE WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO NOR ANY SUCH CONTENTION W AS RAISED. RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 PROVIDE THAT THE APPELL ANT SHALL BE ENTITLED TO PRODUCE BEFORE THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), ANY EVIDENCE, W HETHER ORAL OR DOCUMENTARY, OTHER THAN THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY HI M DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO EXCEPT IN THE F OLLOWING CIRCUMSTANCES, NAMELY:- I) WHERE THE AO HAS REFUSED TO ADMIT EVIDENCE WHICH OU GHT TO HAVE BEEN ADMITTED OR II) WHERE THE APPELLANT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAU SE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS CALLED UPON T O PRODUCE BY THE AO OR III) WHERE THE AO HAS MADE THE ORDER APPEALED AGAINST WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELL ANT TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE RELEVANT TO ANY GROUND OF APPEAL. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS FOU ND THAT THE AO AT NO STAGE REFUSED TO ADMIT ANY EVIDENCE WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN 6 ADMITTED. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO MAKE O UT ANY CASE THAT IT WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FORM PRODUCING TH E EVIDENCE WHICH WAS CALLED TO PRODUCE BY THE AO. FROM THE DETAILS GIVEN ABOVE, IT WOULD BE SEEN THAT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIX ED FOR HEARING 11 TIMES DURING THE PERIOD 09.09.2010 AND 08.12.2011 B UT AT NO STAGE THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED ANY INTENTION TO ADDUCE ANY SUCH EVIDENCE AS IS BEING ADDUCED AT APPELLATE STAGE. COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED BY THE AO HAVE BEEN GIVEN HE REINABOVE IN THIS ORDER. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE AO. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO NOT PREVENTED BY A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE AO ANY EVIDENCE WHICH WAS RELEVANT TO ANY GROUNDS OF APPEA L. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 250 OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES, 1962 CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED AND THE SAME IS HERBY REJECTED. IT HAS ALSO BEEN CONTENDED BY THE LD. A/R OF THE A PPELLANT THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT A PART OF THE ACCOUNT BOOKS AND SO NO ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT COULD BE MADE. IN THIS REGARD, IT MAY BE STATED THAT WRONG MENTIONING OF SECTION DOES NOT VITIATE THE OR DER AND FURTHER, THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS CLEARLY MENTIONED TH AT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSI TS, THE AMOUNT OF RS.16,00,000/- IS BEING HELD AS INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THUS, THIS CONTENTION OF THE A PPELLANT ALSO CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION OF RS.16,00,000/- MADE BY THE AO IS SUSTAINED AND T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN THIS REGARD ARE HERBY DISMISSED. 4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. SUDHIR SEH GAL, ARGUED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON 23.1 1.2011, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE AND EVIDENCE FOR TH E DEPOSIT OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE PUNJAB & SIND BANK AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNE D TO 08.12.2011. THE ASSESSEE HAD ENGAGED HIS COUNSEL IN ORDER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO. THE 7 ASSESSEE NEVER KNEW THAT NOBODY HAD APPEARED BEFORE THE AO ON 08.12.2011. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON 09.12.2011 , THE AO RECEIVED THE A/C STATEMENT FROM THE BANK AND ON THE SAME DAY WI THOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE PASSED THE ASSESSMENT O RDER.(THE FACTS ARE VERY MUCH CLEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE 2). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WHEREIN RS.16 LACS WAS DEPOSITED WAS A JOI NT A/C OF THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS WIFE (PB 21-22) AND THE SAID FACT WAS VERY MUCH KNOWN TO THE AO AS THE INFORMATION WAS CALLED BY THE AO FROM THE BANK. THE LD. COUNSEL STATED THAT THE AO WITHOUT GIVING ANY SHOW CAUSE OR ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE ADDED THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.16 LACS TO T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS WERE FILE D ALONGWITH THE RELEVANT PROOFS WHEREIN IT WAS VERY MUCH EVIDENT THAT THE EN TIRE AMOUNT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEES WIFE AND THE SOURCE FROM WHERE THE W IFE OF THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNT WAS CLEARLY EXPLAINED BUT THE LD. CIT(A) REJECTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BY HOLDING THAT ENOUGH OPPO RTUNITIES WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 4.2. AS REGARDS THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE, THE LD. CO UNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE AS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE NEEDS TO BE ACCEP TED AS THE SAME GOES TO 8 THE ROOT OF THE MATTER FOR DECIDING THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE STATED THAT FROM THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AO RECEIVED THE INFORMATION ON 09.12.2011 FROM THE BANK AND ON THE SAME DAY WIT HOUT GIVING ANY OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ORDER WAS PASSED. THE AO SHOULD HAVE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE BANK DETA ILS. THE ELEMENTARY PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE S HOULD HAVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE MATERIAL WHICH IS GOING TO BE USED AGAINST HIM SO T HAT HE CAN REBUT THE SAME. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IN THE REMAND REPORT , THE AO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COMMENT REGARDING THE DETAILS SUBMISSIONS AS F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MERELY STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO PRODUCE ANY EVIDENCE AFTER THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS (REMAND REPORT AT PB-61) . HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUS E FROM PRODUCING BEFORE THE AO THE RELEVANT EVIDENCE CALLED, BECAUSE THE MA RITAL LIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GOING ON WELL. THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE MANY COMPLAINTS TO THE POLICE AUTHORITIES, IN THE WOMEN CELL OF POL ICE AND MANY COURT CASES INCLUDING CASE FOR MAINTENANCE HAS BEEN FILED BY HI S WIFE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, DUE TO WHICH ASSESSEE WAS UNDER CONSTANT DEPRESSION. 4.3 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON PLETHORA OF JUDGMENTS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE IF THE EVIDENCES ARE VITAL AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE SAME MUST BE ADMITTED, WHICH ARE AS UNDER: 9 I) CIT VS. MUKTA METALS WORKS AS REPORTED IN (2011) 336 ITR 555. II) CIT VS. GIANI BHAI WAHAV BHAUI AS REPORTED IN 232 I TR 900 III) ELECTRA JAIPUR PVT. LTD. VS. IAC AS REPORTED IN 26 ITD 236 IV) CIT VS. PARIMAL KANTI CHANDA (GAUHATI) REPORTED IN 291 ITR 77 V) PARAS RICE MILL AS REPORTED IN 90 TTJ 789 VI) ICHALKARANJI CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD. VS. D CIT (ITAT, PUNE) (TM) REPORTED IN 103 TTJ 593. VII) ITO VS. BHAGWAN DASS CONTRACTOR (2012) 17 ITR (TRIB ) 446) WHEREVER THE ASSESSEE IS PREVENTED BY A SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE THEN SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SHOULD BE AD MITTED. THE REASON FOR THE SAME IS VERY SIMPLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ARE CONTINUATION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS. IN THIS REGARD RELIANCE IS BEING PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KANPUR COAL SYNDICATE, 53 ITR 225. 4.4. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SH. SUDHIR S EHGAL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A) HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO HAS REFERRED TO THE MANY DATES PRIOR TO 23.11.2011 ON WHICH ADJOURNMENTS WERE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. IT I S SUBMITTED THAT IT WAS ONLY ON 23.11.2011 WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED REGA RDING THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN THE BANK A/C AND ON THE NEXT HE ARING DATE, THE CASE WAS 10 DECIDED AFTER MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.16 LACS. AS SUCH, THE AO AS WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) ARE NOT CORRECT IN SAYING SO. 4.5. AS REGARDS THE ISSUE ON MERITS, THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK A/C WAS A JOINT BANK A/C O F THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE AND THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.16 LACS DEPOSITED IN TH E BANK A/C BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEES WIFE. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS GIVEN BY THE A SSESSEES FATHER-IN-LAW. IT WAS THE SECOND MARRIAGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND SECO ND MARRIAGE OF THE WIFE AS WELL, WHICH WAS SOLEMNIZED ON 29.06.2008. THE D EPOSIT ENTRIES IN THE BANK A/ C ARE ON 08.07.2008 AMOUNTING TO RS.7 LACS AND ON 26.07.2008 AMOUNTING TO RS.9 LACS. THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE HA D A DAUGHTER FROM HER PREVIOUS MARRIAGE AND THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE LIA BILITY OF THE DAUGHTER. BECAUSE OF THIS REASON, THE FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE AS SESSEE GAVE AN AMOUNT OF RS.16 LACS AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE TO HIS DAUGHTER, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY HER IN THE JOINT BANK ACCOUNT. HE FURTHER STATED TH AT THE FATHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN RS.42,69,000/- FROM HIS CAPI TAL ACCOUNT (PB-250 IN THE YEAR OF MARRIAGE WHICH PROVES THAT HE IS A PERS ON OF MEANS AND ON THE OTHER HAND THE ASSESSEE HAS VERY LIMITED RESOURCES AND THE SAME CAN BE SEEN FROM THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE PROPRIETRORSHI P CONCERN OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE (PB23 TO 26 AND PB 1 TO 16). SINCE THE WI FE OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PULL ON WITH THE ASSESSEE, SO SHE WITHDREW THE AMOUNT FROM THE BANK AND 11 PURCHASED THREE PLOTS (TOTAL AMOUNTING TO MORE THAN RS.16,00,000/-) BEFORE THE DATE OF ASSESSMENT ORDER (COPIES OF THE REGISTR IES PURCHASED IS GIVEN FORM PB 36-56). FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING GO OD TERMS WITH HIS WIFE, AND THE WIFE HAD ALSO FILED LOT OF COMPLAINTS AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY BECAUSE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER DEPR ESSION. HE STATED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT IN ACTUAL T HE AMOUNT DO NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AT ALL. THE SAME BELONGS TO THE WIFE O F THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THEN, THE COMPLETE SOURCE FOR THE SAME HAS ALSO BEEN EXPL AINED AND UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION IN THE H ANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, MADE THE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE AC T. THE ENTRIES FOR CASH HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE BANK A/C OF THE ASSESSEE WHI CH CANNOT BE TERMED AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HANDS, RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IN THE BEGINNING HAD BEEN TAKING VARIOUS ADJOURNMENTS IN THE MATTER BUT ALSO FILED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED FROM TIME TO TIME BY THE AO, WHICH WERE EXAMINED BY THE TEST CHECK, WHICH IN FACT, IS PART OF THE AS SESSMENT ORDER AT PAGE-2. IT 12 IS ALSO UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO SUBMIT SOURCE OF DEPOSITS OF RS.16,00,000/- ON 23.11.2011 IN THE PUN JAB & SIND BANK, FARIDKOT. THE CASE WAS FINALLY ADJOURNED TO 08.12.2 011 AND NONE ATTENDED ON THE SAID DATE AND THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT O RDER ON 09.12.2011 AFTER COLLECTING INFORMATION FROM THE MANAGER, PUNJAB & S IND BANK, FARIDKOT, AT THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE S AME TO THE ASSESSEE. NO SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.16,00,000/-, AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IF, THE AO HAS TO MAKE ASSESSMENT IN A MANNER UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT , THE AO CANNOT MAKE WILD ADDITIONS OR NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON CONJEC TURES OR SURMISES. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD BEFORE THE AO TO PROVE TH AT RS.16,00,000/- (I.E. RS.7,00,000/- ON 08.07.202008 AND RS.9,00,000/- ON 26.07.2008) WAS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN PASS ING SUCH ORDER. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND EXPLANATION TO THE DEPOSITS OF RS.16,00,000/- BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) UN DER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES, 1962 AND IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN VIEW OF OUR FINDINGS GIVEN HEREINABOVE, THE ASSESSEE WAS PREVEN TED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE EVIDENCE WHICH WAS CALLED UPON T O PRODUCE BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE 13 AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME AND AFTER TAKING REPORT OF THE AO, SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE MATTER. IT WAS PRE-MATURE ON THE PART O F THE LD. CIT(A) TO CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE AO AS INCOME OF RS.16,00, 000/- FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. MOREOVER, THE EVIDENCES ARE VITAL AND IN T HE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE SAME SHOULD BE ADMITTED. THE RELIANCE HAS RIGHTLY B EEN PLACED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. MUKTA METALS WORKS (SUPRA), CIT VS. MUKTA METALS WORKS (SUPRA), CIT VS . GIANI BHAI WAHAV BHAUI (SUPRA), ELECTRA JAIPUR PVT. LTD. VS. IAC (SU PRA), CIT VS. PARIMAL KANTI CHANDA (SUPRA), PARAS RICE MILL (SUPRA) , ICH ALKARANJI CO-OPERATIVE SPINNING MILLS LTD. VS. DCIT AND ITO VS. BHAGWAN DA SS CONTRACTOR (SUPRA). 6.1. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO IS DIRECTED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE SUBMITTED BY THE ASSE SSEE AND DECIDE THE ISSUE ON EXAMINING THE SAME OR BY GETTING THE REPORT FROM THE AO BUT BY AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, THE MATTER IS SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO WILL DECIDE THE ISSUE DENOVO AFTER CONSIDERING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AND AFTER AFFORDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD , AS DIRECTED HEREINABOVE. 14 ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.662(ASR)//2013 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17TH MARCH, 2015. SD/- SD/- (A.D.JAIN) (B.P. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 17TH MARCH, 2015 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:SH.JAGTAR SINGH, FARIDKOT. 2. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(4), FARIDKOT. 3. THE CIT(A), BATHINDA. 4. THE CIT, BATHINDA. 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.