NASIM KHAN,BHUBANESWAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD-2(1), BHUBANESWAR

ITA 533/CTK/2024

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Nasim Khan against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, which confirmed the additions made by the AO under sections 69A and 80TTA of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The primary contention was the non-admission of additional evidences by the CIT(A), despite an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. The AO had treated a deposit of Rs. 92,89,000 as unexplained investment and added it under section 69A, along with other additions. The CIT(A) upheld these additions due to non-compliance by the assessee in the appellate proceedings. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had erred in not considering the additional evidences and granted a fresh opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his claims before the AO.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 473626 (ITAT-CUTTACK)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S.C.MOHANTY
• Assessee Lawyers: S.K. AGARWAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Unexplained investment
• Section: 142(1); 143(2); 69; 69A

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BEFORE MANISH AGARWAL Nasim Khan, Plot No.321, Bhimpur Mouza Area, Bhubaneswar PAN/GIR No. (Appellant Per Bench This is an CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 1/10228/2018-19 2. Shri S.K.Agarwal, S.C.Mohanty, Sr. 3. The assessee has “. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in fact by not admitting the additional evidences submitted by the assessee, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CUTTACK BENCH, CUTTACK BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.533/CTK/2024 Assessment Year :2016-17 Nasim Khan, Plot No.321, Bhimpur Mouza-Aerodrome Area, Bhubaneswar Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Bhubaneswar No. CREPK 1594 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Assessee by : Shri S.K.Agarwal, CA Revenue by : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR Date of Hearing : 31/12/20 Date of Pronouncement : 31/12/20 O R D E R This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 21.10.2024 in Appeal No.CIT(A), 19 for the assessment year 2016-17. S.K.Agarwal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri , Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: . That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in fact by not admitting the additional evidences submitted by the assessee, P a g e 1 | 4 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MEMBER , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Income Tax Officer, Ward- Respondent) S.C.Mohanty, Sr DR 2024 024 appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), Bhubaneswar- the assessee and Shri the following grounds of appeal: . That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in fact by not admitting the additional evidences submitted by the assessee, ITA No.533/CTK/2024 Assessment Year :2016-17 P a g e 2 | 4 despite the fact that an application under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, was filed and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to consider the circumstances or exceptions outlined in Rule 46A that allow the admission of such additional evidences. Therefore, the rejection of these evidences was unjustified 2. That the additions of 92,89,000 made u/s 69A is illegal in view of the fact that deposits and withdrawals in bank accounts are not undisclosed income and therefore the additions of 92,89,000 is liable to be deleted. 3. That, the Ld. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is wrong in not allowing the losses of ₹ 1,45,000 incurred under the head other sources and therefore the additions of 1,45,000 is liable to be deleted. 4. That, the Ld. Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is committed an error of law in not allowing deduction u/s, 80TTA of ₹ 10,000 as interest on savings account.” 4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual deriving income from business or profession. For the year under consideration, the assessee filed his return of income declaring a total of Rs 3,16,660-/. The AO is should notice u/s 143(2) & u/s 142(1) of the Act. However, the assessee could not comply with the notice of hearing. From AIR information the AO noticed that the assessee had deposited cash amounting Of Rs.92,89,000-/ in his saving bank account with Axis Bank. On the basis of above the AO treated the deposit of Rs.92,89,000-/ as unexplained investment & added the same u/s 69 A of the Act. Besides this, The AO also made addition of Rs.43,747/- and Rs.1,45,000/- towards loss from other sources. ITA No.533/CTK/2024 Assessment Year :2016-17 P a g e 3 | 4 5. On appeal ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition as there has no compliance before him. Hence, the assesee appeal before us. 6. It was submitted by ld AR that the ld CIT(A), NFAC has dismissed the appeal of the assessee exparte without affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The ld. AR submit that before the ld CIT(A) the assesse had submitted new evidences under rule 46A of I.T rules which were not considered. It was his submission that even the assessment order has been passed u/s.144 as without giving reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Ld AR requested that if one opportunity is granted to the assessee, the assessee would be in a position to cooperate in the set aside proceedings before the AO. Ld Sr DR opposed the prayer of the ld AR of the assessee. It was his submission that the assessee is not bothered to cooperate either in the assessment proceedings nor before the ld CIT(A). 7. We have considered the rival submissions. A perusal of the order of the ld CIT(A) clearly shows that the assesssee had furnished some additional evidences which have not been considered by the ld. CIT(A). The Ld CIT(A) was of the opinion that when the assesse is vigilant to prefer appeal but did not respond notices of hearing. It was also opined that when the assessee had not participated in the assessment proceedings, now it cannot claimed that he was prevented by sufficient cause form producing these evidences before the AO. Accordingly, he declined to accept the additional evidences & confirmed the addition made by the AO. Before us, ITA No.533/CTK/2024 Assessment Year :2016-17 P a g e 4 | 4 ld AR request one more opportunity to substantiate his claim before the Assessing officer. In view of above, in order to render substantiate justices, the issues in this appeal are restored to the file of the ld AO for fresh adjudication as per law and after affording reasonable opportunity to the assessee. Liberty is given to the assessee to produce all such evidences, as deem necessary during the set aside proceedings before the AO. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 31/12/2024. Sd/- sd/- (Manish Agarwal) (George Mathan) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 31/12/2024 B.K.Parida, SPS (OS) Copy of the Order forwarded to : By order Sr.Pvt.Secretary ITAT, CUTTACK 1. The appellant; Nasim Khan, Plot No.321, Bhimpur Mouza-Aerodrome Area, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Bhubaneswar DR, ITAT, 6. Guard file. //True Copy// "