Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Amritsar
Sh. Vikas Sharma, Jalandhar vs Income Tax Officer,, Jalandhar on 22 February, 2017
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
AMRITSAR BENCH: (CIRCUIT BENCH AT JALANDHAR)
BEFORE SHRI A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND
SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A No.594/ASR/2016
(ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10)
Sh. Vikas Sharma, WG-385, Vs.. ITO-Ward III, (2),
Niwan Suraj Ganj, Jalandhar.
Jalandhar.
PAN No.AWIPS7405B (Revenue)
(Assessee)
Assessee by Shri . M. R. Bhagat, AR.
Revenue by Smt. Balvinder Kaur, DR.
Date of Hearing 23.01.2017
Date of Pronouncement 22 .02.2017
ORDER
PER, A. D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
This is assessee's appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10 against the ld. CIT(A)'s order dated 5.09.2016.
2. The ld. CIT(A), in Para 4.1 of the impugned order has observed that on 01.09.2016, after three adjournments, the matter was fixed for furnishing of counter comments by the assessee, to the remand report of the AO; that again, a request for adjournment was received; that the ld. AR of the assessee was asked to I.T.A No.594/ASR/2016 2 wait for five minutes and when called after five minutes, no one was present to take the date or to file any submissions.
3. In the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee filed a print out of cash book to substantiate the sources of cash deposits. The AO furnished a remand report in this regard, objecting to the admission of this additional evidence. It was in this action, that the assessee's counter comments were required. In the absence thereof, the ld. CIT(A) refused to admit the additional evidence and proceeded to dismiss the assessee's appeal, by observing as follows:
"4.4 AO has examined the additional evidence filed in the course of present proceedings and submitted that the contentions of the appellant could not be substantiate with evidence. I have also considered and gone through the evidence brought on record by the appellant and find that the request of the appellant for admission of additional evidence has not been substantiated with the reasons and justification for non-submission of the same evidence at the stage of assessment proceedings. Therefore I do not find any justification in admission of the additional evidence at this stage.
4.5 Further, on merits of the case, I find that contentions of the appellant could not be substantiated with evidence available on record. The contention that cash in hand and cash I.T.A No.594/ASR/2016 3 in bank has already been disclosed in the return of income filed could not be substantiated with the copy of return of income filed (a copy of the same was enclosed by the AO with the remand report). I find that in the return of income, no details of cash in hand and cash at bank have been filed up and rather nil has been shown against both. Further, I find that in the return of income, in column number 51 - in the case where regular books of account of business are not maintained, furnish the following information.
a. Gross Receipts ; b. Gross Profit; c. Expenses; d. Net Profit These figures have not been furnished by the appellant in the return of income, which are essential in the case, where the return of income has been filed on presumptive income basis. 4.6 Thus, on the basis of above discussion, I hold that appellant has failed to furnish any credible evidence to substantiate the sources of cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant. The explanation furnished by the appellant that cash deposits have been made out of the business of receipts does not stand substantiated with the heard evidence available on record. Accordingly, I find that AO was justified in holding the cash deposits as unexplained income of the appellant and therefore confirm the addition of Rs.2,104,500/- made by the AO under head."
4. It is seen that the addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits amounts to Rs.21,04,500/-. A print out of cash book was produced by way of I.T.A No.594/ASR/2016 4 additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee had not explained sufficient cause for not produce the evidence before the AO, resulting in the rejection of his request for admission of additional evidence, as also the dismissal of his appeal. The assessee was visited with this consequence due to non availability of anyone before the ld. CIT(A) at the relevant time after filing the application for adjournment. The ld. CIT(A) has himself observed that there was nobody present, either to take the date, or to file submissions.
5. The case involves substantial financial implications either where i.e., in the event of the addition being sustained, as has come about, or if the addition were to be deleted. The additional evidence produced as well be crucial in the matter, subject, of course, to the assessee showing sufficient cause for not been able to have produced it before the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit this appeal to the file of the ld. CIT(A), to decide it afresh in accordance with law, on affording one last opportunity to the assessee to file his counter comments to the AO's remand report. The ld. CIT(A) shall decide the merits of the addition after considering the assessee's counter comments, if any are filed by the assessee. The assessee shall, no doubt, to co-operate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) and he shall not seek any further unnecessary frivolous adjournment. This remand is being ordered at the risk and peril of the assessee, as mentioned. It also I.T.A No.594/ASR/2016 5 goes without showing that all pleas available to the assessee under the law shall remain so available to him.
6. In the result, for statistical purposes, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 22/02/2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(T. S. KAPOOR) (A.D. JAIN)
ACCOUTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated 22/02/2017
*AKV*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
By Order AR/Sr.P.S./P.S.
I.T.A No.594/ASR/2016
6
Date
1. Draft dictated (DNS) 09.02.2017 PS
2. Draft placed before author 10.02.2017 PS
3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member JM/AM
4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. JM/AM
5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS/PS
6. Kept for pronouncement on PS
7. File sent to the Bench Clerk PS
8. Date on which file goes to the AR
9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk.
10. Date of dispatch of Order.