SH. SUBASH CHANDER SEHGAL, MOGA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD - 2, MOGA

ITA 76/ASR/2019

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Sh. Subhash Chander Sehgal against the orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana, for the assessment years 2008-09 to 2010-11. The primary contention was the rejection of the appellant's appeals by the CIT(A) without proper consideration of the submitted documents and statements. The Income Tax Officer had made additions to the appellant's income under sections concerning unexplained cash credits and investments in properties, which the CIT(A) upheld without adequately addressing the appellant's submissions. The ITAT found that the CIT(A) had not properly considered the additional evidence provided under Rule 46A and had not issued a show cause notice regarding the adverse findings, thus violating the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114753 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 29-01-2019
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Additional evidence
• Section: 68; 72

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. Nos. 74 to 76/Asr/2019 Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2010-11 Sh. Subhash Chander Sehgal, H.No.742, Rabwali Gali, Sardar Nagar, Moga [PAN: AFLPC 4832Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Moga (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Sh. Mohit Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 02.08.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 17.08.2023 ORDER Per Bench: These appeals have been filed by the by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana even dated 05.11.2018 in respect of Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2010-11 wherein the appellant has challenged that the ld. CIT(A) has summarily ITA Nos. 74 to 76/Asr/2019 Subhash Chander Sehgal v. ITO 2 rejected the appeals without considering details of statement of facts and the written submissions filed by the appellant assessee. 2. None appeared nor any adjournment application has been filed by the assessee. Considering written synopsis of 12 pages and the paper book comprising of 72 pages filed on record on 20 th April, 2023, it noted that the grievance of the assessee has been overlooked by the CIT(A) by not taking cognizance of the submissions of the appellant assessee and rejected its appeal in summary manner by passing the order ex-parte qua the assessee. However, it is decided to hear the ld. DR and adjudicate the appeal on merits of the case. 3. From the record, it is seen that the assessee has made investment in property on different dates out of the cash as claimed being available with the appellants on the date of investment in disputed properties. However, the appellant assessee contended that the AO and the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the submission and documentary evidences filed by the appellant on the availability of cash in hand as opening balance and investment in properties and cash credits in bank account u/s 68 of the I. T. Act without granting proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and ignoring the facts available on record and the information and documentary evidences ITA Nos. 74 to 76/Asr/2019 Subhash Chander Sehgal v. ITO 3 filed before the authorities below. It is also pleaded in grounds that the additional evidence under Rule 46A was rejected in violation of the provisions of law. 4. Having heard the ld. DR and perusal of the impugned order, it is revealed that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the assessee’s explanation and application filed under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence merely stating as deserved to be rejected without giving any reason for rejection of the additional evidence in view of the provisions of Rule 46A of the ITAT Rule 1963. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have rebutted the admission of additional evidence being not covered under the four exceptions provided under Rule 46A of the ITAT Rule 1963 for non- admission of the additional evidence filed by the assessee. 5. It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has not issued a show cause notice to the appellant assessee regarding adverse inference/decision taken against the assessee in confirming the finding of the AO so as to enable the appellant to file its rebuttal in its defense in view of the principle of natural justice. In our view, it is a fit case to be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) to examine the issue of admission of the additional evidence under Rule 46A afresh and consider the written submission filed on record and may be filed ITA Nos. 74 to 76/Asr/2019 Subhash Chander Sehgal v. ITO 4 in the afresh proceedings after granting sufficient opportunity of being heard. The ld. CIT(A) is further directed to issue a show cause notice to the appellant assessee stating therein the proposed adverse action if any to enable it to file the rebuttal in view of the principle of natural justice. No doubt, the assessee shall co-operate in the fresh appellate proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, all the three appeals in ITA Nos. 74 to 76/Asr/2019 on identical facts are restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A). 6. In the result, the subject appeals filed by the assessees are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.08.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order