SHRI MANJINDER SINGH S/O SHRI SATNAM SINGH,KAPURTHALLA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER -2, KAPURTHALA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5/ASR/2018Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar02 March 2023AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) failed to appreciate the material evidence filed by the assessee to substantiate the source of cash. The matter was remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after considering the additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns the rejection of additional evidence by the CIT(A) regarding the source of cash deposits. The CIT(A) sustained an addition of Rs. 29,06,900/- made under sections 69/69A for unexplained cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting additional evidence and sustaining the addition for unexplained cash deposits. Whether the assessment was validly reopened.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 69A,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE

Hearing: 23.02.2023Pronounced: 02.03.2023

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Jalandhar dated 31.10.2017 in respect of Assessment Year 2009-10.

Manjinder Singh v. ITO 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee submitted that the ld.

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘CIT(A)], is not justified in rejecting the additional evidence in the shape of Form J pertaining to the father of the assessee as an evidence for the availability of the funds with the father of the assessee and in turn with the. He contended that the ld. CIT(A) has been wrongly in sustaining the addition of Rs. 29,06,900/- made u/s 69/69A by not believing the source of cash deposits in the bank account and thereafter not allowing the benefit of cash deposits out of cash withdrawals, funds of the father and cash in hand. The ld. counsel has objected to the reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act as the letter issued by the AO was for verification of final transaction u/s 133(6). He has filed a written submission with case laws comprising with pg. nos. 1 to 70 with a request to remand back the matter to the ld. CIT(A) for admission of additional evidence under rule 46A and adjudicate the issue of source of cash deposit afresh after granting fresh opportunity to the appellant assessee.

3.

It is evident from the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) vide para 5.2 that the appellant assessee has filed a bank statement, copy of sale agreement and registration deeds in evidence for the source of cash

Manjinder Singh v. ITO filed before the AO (APB pg. 25 to 29), confirming that the cash was handed over to the assessee by Harbansh Singh. Further, a copy of Form J issued by Arathiya (APB pg. 35) which are vital documents for the verification of the source of the cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant assessee has also been filed.

4.

It is seen that the ld. CIT(A) has merely stated that no rebuttal evidence could be filed by the appellant assessee either in the course of assessment proceedings or in the course of present proceedings so as to substantiate the source of cash inflows as stated by the appellant and hold that the source of inflows stated by the appellant are vague in nature. Thus, the ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the material evidence filed to substantiate the source of cash without pointing out any discrepancies in the evidences produced by the appellant by way of Form J of crop sale issued by the Arathiya, affidavit of the fund of cash funds available to the assessee by Sh. Sukhwinder Singh through an affidavit, withdrawal of deposits made in the bank accounts showing the cash flow statement which are vital evidences need to be rebutted while rejecting the claim of the source of the cash deposit in the bank as claimed by the appellant assessee. The ld. DR

Manjinder Singh v. ITO though stand by the impugned order but failed to furnish any rebuttal to the contention raised by the assessee.

5.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that this is a fit case to be remanded back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the matter afresh after considering the additional evidence available on the record and to be filed in the fresh proceedings before him. The ld. CIT(A) is also directed to grant adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and consider the evidences produced on record by the appellant to explain its source of cash deposit in its bank account. No doubt, the assessee shall cooperate in the fresh proceedings before the ld. CIT(A).

6.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 02.03.2023

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →