Smt. Surbhi Jain, Indore V. The ITO2(1), Indore

ITA 863/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8343 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 08-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 68; 148

Judgement Text

ITA No.863/ Ind/ 2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) ITA No.863/Ind/2019 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt. Surbhi Jain, vs. Income Tax Officer – 2(1), W/o. Shri Mukesh Jain, Indore. 41E, Bakhtawar Ram Nagar, Tilak Nagar, Indore – 452 001. [PAN – AHWPJ 5697 D] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Harshit Bari, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 14.06.2022 Date of pronouncement : 12.07.2022 O R D E R PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 10.06.2019 passed by the CIT(A)-I, Indore for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The ground of appeal are as under: “1. The learned Commissioner erred in making addition of Rs.3,50,000/- out of Rs.8,50,000/- as arbitratory without considering of the facts, assuming income of an assessee for relevant year, the said addition kindly be deleted in the interest of natural justice.” 3. The assessee filed return under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 27.07.2017 showing total income of Rs.1,07,395/-. The Assessing Officer assessed the total income of Rs.9,57,400/- by adding cash deposited in Bank by the assessee during the year. The Assessing Officer observed that the cash deposit amounting to ITA No.863/ Ind/ 2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 2 of 3 Rs.8,50,000/- remains to be unexplained and added the same as unexplained cash credit under Section 68 of the Act. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CITA . The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. At the time of hearing none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notice. Therefore, we are proceeding on the basis of the submissions made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer as well as before the CIT(A). 6. The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on recorded. It is pertinent to note that the Revenue has taken on record the statement of the purchaser Shri Rajesh Farkiya who is the purchaser of the plot and he has confirmed the fact that there was sale of plot and the amount of advance received/paid was Rs.3,50,000/-. Thus, the confirmation was before the Assessing Officer and the same was totally ignored/doubted without any basis by the Assessing Officer. The assessee has explained the amount received from the purchaser i.e. Rs.3,50,000/- and thus the CIT(A) was not right in confirming the balance amount to that extent. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 9. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 12 th day of July, 2022. Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) Accountant Member Judicial Member Indore, the 12 th day of July, 2022 PBN/* ITA No.863/ Ind/ 2019 A.Y. 2010-11 Page 3 of 3 Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Assistant Registrar Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore