YASH PAL JINDAL, 1233, SECTOR 10, AMBALA CITY, HARYANA,HARYANA V. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC DELHI, JAO, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMBALA, HARYANA

ITA 106/CHANDI/2025

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by the assessee, Yash Pal Jindal, against the order of the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi, which pertained to the Assessment Year 2013-14. The primary issue arose from the reopening of the assessee's income tax assessment under section 147 and the subsequent addition of Rs. 15,00,000 to his income under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, due to unexplained cash deposits in his bank account. The CIT(A) had rejected the additional evidence provided by the assessee during the appellate proceedings, leading to the current appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had not properly appreciated the relevance of the additional documents and thus remanded the case back to the AO for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 669114 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-06-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANJIT KAUR
• Assessee Lawyers: SUDHIR SEHGAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Additional evidence; Salary income; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 144

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,चǷीगढ़ Ɋायपीठ “बी” , चǷीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE ŵी लिलत क ुमार, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल, लेखा सद˟ BEFORE: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JM & SHRI. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 106/Chd/ 2025 िनधाŊरण वषŊ / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Yash Pal, Jindal, 1233, Sector 10, Ambala City, Haryana बनाम The ITO Ward-2, Ambala ˕ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AFRPJ9637G अपीलाथŎ/Appellant ŮȑथŎ/Respondent िनधाŊįरती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राजˢ की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 23/06/2025 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 24/06/2025 आदेश/Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 11/12/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring income from salary, house property, other sources and a small business. The assessment was reopened under section 147 and concluded under section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The AO made an addition of Rs.15,00,000 under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits made into the assessee’s bank account. 3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) contending that the cash deposits were out of cash in hand available on 31.03.2012 after 2 closure of his liquor business. It was also submitted that all supporting documents, including balance sheets and bank statements, were filed during assessment proceedings and were also uploaded during appellate proceedings. However, the CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A on the ground that the assessee failed to demonstrate why the same could not be filed before the AO despite sufficient opportunities. 4. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 5. During the course of hearing, the assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds, ignoring the merits. The cash deposits and advance were explained by the 31.03.2012 cash balance, evidenced by the balance sheet, passbook, and affidavit. 6. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities. 7. Having heard the contentions of the parties and perused the record, we find that the CIT(A) has not properly appreciated the fact that the documents filed during appellate proceedings may have a crucial bearing on adjudication of the matter. Though the CIT(A) has rejected admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A, there is merit in the contention of the assessee that such documents were relevant and partly already available with the Department. 8. In view of the principles of natural justice and in the interest of fair adjudication, we are of the considered opinion that the matter should be 3 remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO shall consider all the evidences including those produced before the CIT(A) and provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to present his case. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the fresh assessment proceedings and file all the requisite documents and explanations before the AO. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/06/2025 Sd/- Sd/- मनोज क ुमार अŤवाल लिलत क ुमार (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (LALIET KUMAR) लेखा सद˟/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ɋाियक सद˟ /JUDICIAL MEMBER AG आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथŎ/ The Appellant 2. ŮȑथŎ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुƅ/ CIT 4. आयकर आयुƅ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चǷीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. गाडŊ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "