MOHAMMED MOSHIN,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, GHAZIABAD

PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, AM: (A) This appeal by Assessee is filed against the order of Learned

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order dated 30.10.2018 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income tax Appeals (“Ld. CIT(A)”) is erroneous and bad in law.

Mohammed Moshin Vs. DCIT 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.11,00,000 made by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) on account of alleged unexplained cash u/s 69A of the Income tax Act, 1961 despite the fact that the Assessee has provided all documents and evidences to support his claim and complete source of the cash is explained.

(B) In this case, assessment order dated 29/12/2017 was passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act; wherein the assessee’s total income was assessed at Rs.2,77,99,465/- (rounded off to Rs.2,77,99,470/-) is against the returned income of Rs.2,66,99,465/-. In the aforesaid assessment Mohammed Moshin Vs. DCIT order, an addition of Rs.11,00,000/- was made on account of cash seized during the course of search operation u/s 132 of IT Act. The assessee filed appeal against the aforesaid assessment order in the office of the Ld. CIT(A). In the course of appellate proceedings, in the office of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted some additional evidences. The Ld. CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidences and dismissed the assessee’s appeal. This present appeal before us has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 30/10/2018 of the Ld. CIT(A).

(B) At the time of hearing before us, the assessee appellant was represented by none. In the absence of any representation from the assessee side, we heard the Ld. CIT-DR for Revenue. She relied on the impugned appellate order dated 30/10/2018 of the Ld. CIT(A) and the assessment order dated 29/12/2017.

(C) On perusal of the impugned appellate order dated 30/10/2018 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted additional evidences filed by the appellant assessee in the course of appellate proceedings in the office of the Ld. CIT(A).

However, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has not passed a speaking Page 3 of 5 Mohammed Moshin Vs. DCIT order explaining why he did not admit the additional evidences. The additional evidences filed by the appellant assessee were rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) in a summary manner, merely stating that “the additional evidences submitted by the appellant cannot be entertained at this juncture, as the same is outside the purview of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules”. In the facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, we are of the view, that the Ld. CIT(A) should have passed a speaking order explaining why he did not admit additional evidences.

(C.1) In view of the foregoing; and in the facts and circumstances of the present appeal before us, we set aside the impugned appellate order dated 30/10/2018 of the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with the direction to pass a speaking order regarding admissibility or otherwise of the additional evidences. If the Ld. CIT(A) decides to admit the additional evidences in pursuance of this order, then he is further directed to decide the issues in dispute afresh through a speaking order after providing reasonable opportunity to the Mohammed Moshin Vs. DCIT assessee. All grounds of appeal are treated as disposed off in accordance with aforesaid directions.

(C.1) For statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as partly allowed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 28/02/2023.