Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Delhi

Inderjeet Singh, Noida vs Ito, Ward- 1(5), Noida on 6 June, 2018

        IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
             DELHI BENCH 'SMC', NEW DELHI
             Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member
            ITA No. 7601/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10
Shri Inderjeet Singh,             Vs Income Tax Officer,
C/o Shri Jainendra Kumar Garg,       Ward-1(5),
CA, G-113, Basement, Preet           Noida
Vihar, Delhi-110092
(APPELLANT)                            (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. ACOPO9499P
                Assessee by : Sh. V. Raja Kumar, Adv.
                Revenue by : Sh. B. R. Mishra, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 04.06.2018        Date of Pronouncement : 06.06.2018

                                   ORDER

This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29.09.2017 o f ld. CIT(A)-I, Noida.

2. Following grounds have been raised in this appeal:

"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the following actions of the Assessing Officer:

1) in making addition of Rs.20,00,000/- thereafter on account of alleged unexplained deposit cash in Bank;

2) in rejecting the additional evidence submitted in terms of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and not providing due and adequate opportunity of explaining the same.

Both the actions being arbitrary, misconceived, erroneous and unjust must be quashed with directions for relief."

Inderjeet Singh

3. The main grievance of the assessee vide ground no. 2 relates to the rejection of additional evidence in terms of Rules 46A of the Inco me Tax Rules, 1962 and that due and reasonable opportunit y was not provided by the ld. CIT(A).

4. The facts of the case in brief are that the AO on the basis o f information received fro m Annual Information Report (AIR) ca me to know that that the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.20,00.000/- in the Canara Bank. He, therefore, issued a notice u/s 148 of the Inco me Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since the assessee did not co mply, the AO made the addition o f Rs.20,00,000/- by passing the ex-parte order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 o f the Act.

5. Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and requested for grant of leave under Rule 46A of the Inco me Tax Rules, 1962 to file the fresh evidences which were not before the AO. The ld. CIT(A) forwarded the said additiona l material to the AO for necessary consideration and to give report. The AO rejected the evidences of the assessee which were related to the source of cash deposited in the bank account and reco mmended that the case may be decided on merit. Copy of the remand report was provided by the ld. CIT(A) to the assessee for his necessary response. The assessee, on 18.09.2017 sub mitted through a letter that it was in the process of collecting of various documents which were claimed to be critical for deciding the issue 3 ITA No. 7601/Del/2017 Inderjeet Singh and sought adjournment. However, the ld. CIT(A) did not accept the request of the assessee and confirmed the action of the AO.

6. Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee sub mitted that the AO passed the assessment order ex- parte without providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the ld. CIT(A) also without considering this request of the assessee for adjournment on the ground that certain documents which were critical to decide the issue were to be furnished, confirmed the addition in haste without giving due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He requested to set aside the issue to the file of the AO to be decided after considering the documents of the assessee which are directly related to the deposit in the bank.

7. In his rival sub missions, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that due and reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in confirming the action of the AO.

8. I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the AO fra med the assessment ex- parte u/s 144 of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) furnished certain documents which were not accepted by the AO. The ld. CIT(A) sought the remand report fro m the AO. Thereafter, the assessee sought time to furnish certain documents which were critical to decide the issue of depositing the cash in his 4 ITA No. 7601/Del/2017 Inderjeet Singh account maintained with Canara Bank but the ld. CIT(A) did not allow another opportunity to the assessee. It is well settled that nobody should be condemned unheard as per the maxim "audi alteram partem". I, therefore, by keeping in view the principles of natural justice, deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the AO to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistica l purposes.

(Order Pronounced in the Court on 06/06/2018) Sd/-

(N. K. Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 06/06/2018 *Subodh* Copy forwarded to:

1. Appellant

2. Respondent

3. CIT

4. CIT(Appeals)

5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR