Subhash Chander Boora, Faridabad V. ITO, Ward-2(4), Faridabad

ITA 8240/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3967 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-03-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDISH SINGH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 246; 148

Judgement Text

1 ITA NO. 8240/DEL/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: I(2 ) + SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEM BER, AND SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOU NTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 8240/DEL/2018 ( A.Y 2010-11) SUBHASH CHANDER BOORA FLAT NO. 403, RAMA KRISHNA KKGHS, SECTOR-2 BALLABHGARH, HARYANA AOXPB6187L (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-2(4) FARIDABAD, HARYANA (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. JAGDISH SINGH, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 18/12/2018 PASSED BY CIT(A)-6, DELHI FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015 -16. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE A.O HAS MADE ADDITION OF 15,12,530/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT IN HDFC BANK LIMITED U/S 1 43(3)/147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961('THE ACT'). 2. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE THE APPEAL TO CIT(A) U /S 246 A OF THE ACT, AGAINST THE ORDER OF AO DATED 11.12.2017. CIT (A) I N ORDER U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT,1961 HAS PARTIALLY ALLOWED THE APPEA L ON THE BASIS AND GROUNDS GIVEN IN SUCH APPEAL. CIT(A) ADDED TO THE I NCOME OF THE APPELLANT TOTALING RS 6,60,000 3. NOT SATISFIED WITH THE PARTIAL RELIEF GRANTED BY T HE CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE DATE OF HEARING 24.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 02.03.2020 2 ITA NO. 8240/DEL/2018 APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL 4. CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE : IT WAS STAT ED THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO WAS THAT MERE CASH DEPOSITS WAS TREATED TO BE EQUIVALENT TO INCOME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT. THE COMMISSIONER OF APPEAL TREATED THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS. 3,10,000/- , 2,00,000/- AND 1, 50,000/- AS HUGE CASH DEPOSITS AND STATED THAT THESE CASH DEPOSITS DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THESE CASH DEPOSITS CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THESE ARE HUGE CASH DEPOSITS. 3. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS INCOME TAX RETURN ON 28/1 2/2010 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1,55,330/- FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 10-11. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSI T OF RS. 13,57,200/- IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK L TD DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148, THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE CASE IS COVERED U/S 44AE OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, DOES NOT REQUIRE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED AFTER RECORDING REASONS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 28/3/2017. THE REASSESSMENT U/S 143( 3)/147 WAS COMPLETED ON 11/12/2017 AT AN ASSESSED INCOME OF RS.15,12,530 /-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED FOR THE AS SESSEE AND THERE IS NO APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE NOTICE HAS BEEN D ULY SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE PROCEEDING ON THE BASIS OF THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BE FORE THE CIT(A). 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS W ELL AS ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 3 ITA NO. 8240/DEL/2018 7. WE HAVE HEARD LD. DR AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE ON RECORD. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS. 13,57,000/- WHICH WAS TREATED AS THE AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT( A), IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE EXPLANATION WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). BESIDES THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED CE RTAIN EVIDENCES BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A). THE REFORE, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A ) FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION ON MERIT OF THE CASE AFTER VERIFYING ALL THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCES BEFORE THE CIT(A). NEEDLESS TO SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 8. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 02 ND MARCH, 2020. SD/- SD/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL M EMBER DATED: 02 /03/2020 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 4 ITA NO. 8240/DEL/2018 DATE OF DICTATION 24.0 2 .2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 25.0 2 .2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 0 2 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 0 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 0 2 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 0 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 0 2 . 0 3 . 2 0 2 0 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER