, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH SMC , CHANDIGARH . . , BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT ./ ITA NO.76/CHD/2019 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SH.HARNEET SINGH DUA, H.NO.582, GURUDWARA KALGIDHAR ROAD, FIELD GANJ, LUDHIANA. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2(5), LUDHIANA. ./PAN NO: AGHPD3488L /APPELLANT /RESPONDENT /ASSESSEE BY : NONE ! / REVENUE BY : SHRI MUDIT SRIVASTAVA, SR.DR ' # $ /DATE OF HEARING : 13.06.2019 %&'( $ /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13.06.2019 /ORDER THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 5.11.2018 OF LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS)-1, LUDHIANA (IN SHORT CIT(A). 2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE CASE IS DECI DED EX- PARTE AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR ON MERIT. ITA NO.76/CHD/2019 A.Y.2010-11 2 3. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THIS APPEA L: 1. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION AMOUNTING TO RS.8,68,800/- IN MAKING THE DISALLOWANCE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. 2. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ACCEDING TO THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO AFFORD HIM OPPORTUNITY AS PER RULE 46A TO PLACE ON RECORD THE MISSING DOCUMENTS OBTAINED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS ERRED AND BAD IN LAW. 4. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE A. O. ON THE BASIS OF AIR/CIB INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE DEPO SITED RS.14,15,800/- IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINE D WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, MATA RANI CHOWK, LUDHIANA, IS SUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHOR T THE ACT). IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF IN COME ON 9.10.2017 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,45,250/-. THE A.O. MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.8,68,800/- BY OBSERVING THAT AFTER EXAMINATION THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND B ANK STATEMENT RECEIVED FROM CITI BANK, THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO SURRENDER RS.8,68,800/-. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT AT THE STAGE OF ASSESS MENT, THE ITA NO.76/CHD/2019 A.Y.2010-11 3 ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROCURE THE EVIDENCE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT OF CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.8 LACS IN CASH WAS RECEIVED FROM ONE OF ITS CLIENTS, WHICH WAS DEPOSIT ED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID CONTENTIO N, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED AN AGREEMENT DATED 4.7.2009 AND REQUESTED TO ADMIT THE SAME UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I NCOME TAX RULES, 1962. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT ADM IT THE SAID EVIDENCE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E A.O. 6. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 7. THE LD. SR.DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. DR AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE FU RNISHED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A), WHICH COU LD NOT BE PROCURED EARLIER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. I, THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMAND THIS CASE TO THE CIT(A) TO BE ADJUDICATED AFRESH IN ITA NO.76/CHD/2019 A.Y.2010-11 4 ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER PROVIDING DUE AND REASONA BLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.06.2019.) SD/- (N.K.SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT '# /DATED: 13 TH JUNE, 2019 * * &) *+ ,+ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ' - / CIT 4. ' - ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. +./ 0 , $ 0 , 123/4 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. /3 5# / GUARD FILE &) ' / BY ORDER, ! / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR