SHRI SUHEEL ABBAS MIRZA,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3 (3), SRINAGAR
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No.160/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2009-10
Suheel Abbas Mirza, Vs. ITO, Ward-3(3), Qamarwari Near Shah Cinema Srinagar. Srinagar (J & K) [PAN: AWEPM2615F] (Respondent) (Appellant)
Appellant by Sh. Bashir Ahmad Lone, CA. Respondent by Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing 27.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 31.01.2023
ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:
The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’]
bearing appeal DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1043498336(1),date
I.T.A. No.160/Asr/2022 2 Assessment Year: 2009-10
of order 21.06.2022, order passed u/s 250of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity
the Act] for A.Y. 2009-10.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the
ld. Income Tax Officer Ward-3(3), Srinagar,(in brevity the AO) order passed u/s
143(3)/147 of the Act date of order 31.12.2016.
Brief fact of the case is that the assessee’s case was reopened by pursuing
notice u/s 148 of the Act. The assessee informed to the ld. AO that ITR was
already filed vide acknowledgment no. 61200438 dated 20.09.2009 declaring net
income of Rs.11,13,205/- which may be treated as ITR filed incompliance to notice
u/s 148 of the Act. The reasons of reopening were that the assessee has made cash
payment of Rs.22,41,114/-. As per the assessment order, the ld. AO mentioned that
the assessee is maintaining two PAN one is AWEPM2615F and another PAN
AOMPM3869D. The information was gathered by the ld. AO that the amount of
Rs.22,41,114/- was transacted against the PAN AOMPM3869D. The assessee has
only accepted the PAN bearing number AWEPM2615F and has denied to maintain
any PAN in his own name bearing number AOMPM3869D. During assessment the
total bank transaction related to PAN AOMPM3869D was added back with the
total income of the assessee and in the assessment order the ld. AO has mentioned
I.T.A. No.160/Asr/2022 3 Assessment Year: 2009-10
the PAN AOMPM3869D which was treated as assessee’s own PAN number. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A) has
passed the order against the PAN No. AWEPM2615F which was claimed as assessee’s own PAN. The ld. CIT(A) upheld the order of the ld. AO. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us by challenging the order of CIT(A). 3. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee has filed written submission
and mentioned that he had not in connection with PAN AOMPM3869D. The assessee is maintaining the credit card in Citi Bank and amount of Rs.3,16,500/- was paid from his own ICICI Bank A/c during the year. In this respect, the
assessee has submitted the bank statement of ICICI Bank, Kalidasa Road, V.V. Mohalla, 9th Cross Mysore, Karnataka, 570021, copy of the statement is enclosed in APB from pages 14 to 21.
3.1 The ld. counsel for the assessee further invited our attention in credit card statement of CITI Bank which has also enclosed in APB pages 5 to 13. The assessee is a salaried employee as proof the Form No. 16 is enclosed in APB pages 1 to 2. The ld. Counsel for assessee claimed that the assessee has sufficient salaried income to meet the credit card expenses amount of Rs.3,16,500/-.
I.T.A. No.160/Asr/2022 4 Assessment Year: 2009-10
The ld. Sr. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of the revenue
authorities.
We heard the rival submission and perused the documents available in the
record. In assessment order, the ld. AO had recognised two PAN numbers. One of
whichis denied by the assessee himself. The order was passed on basis of the PAN
bearing number AOMPM3869D. But the ld. AO had lack of process of verification
& fully relied on internal data base. No evidence was found related credit card
payment amount of Rs.22,41,114/-. The verification of credit authority was also
negated in assessment order.The ld.AO was not able to bringany cogent material
about the twin PAN numberwhich was claimed to be maintained by the assessee.
The assessee had filed return& submitted the Form No. 16 and also the appeal
order or related to the PAN AWEPM2615F which was claimed as assessee’s own
PAN Number. In our considered view, we find that there is a lack of inquiry on the
part of the AO to bring the proper fact in the order. The data base was not
correctlyindicated about the maintaining the twin PAN by the assessee, if any. We
accept the documents submitted by the assessee through his counsel. We remand
back the matter to the ld. AO to unearth the proper fact related to two PAN
I.T.A. No.160/Asr/2022 5 Assessment Year: 2009-10
numbers and proof of payment of credit card account amount of Rs. 22,41,114/-
.Needless to say, that the AO shall provide proper and adequate opportunity of
being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings. The evidence/explanations
submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted by the ld. AO and
adjudicated by the ld. AO on merits in accordance with law. We order accordingly.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No. 160/Asr/2022 is
allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2023
Sd/- Sd/- (Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member
AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.
