SOBH RAM,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD-4, , PANIPAT
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DLEHI
Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY
PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, J.M.
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the
order dated 21.01.2019, impugned herein, passed by the learned
Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Karnal (in short “Ld.
Commissioner”), u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in
short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2010-11.
2 ITA No. 2033/Del/2019
In the instant case, proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act have
been initiated against the Assessee and after recording reasons,
the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on dated 30.03.2017
alleged to be duly served through registered post. The Assessee
in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, filed its return of
income on dated 28.08.2017 by declaring total income at
Rs.1,85,000/- and agricultural income at Rs.5,00,000/-.
Subsequently, statutory notices have also been issued to the
Assessee.
The Assessing Officer after discussion and examination of
the case computed the income of the Assessee and made the
additions of Rs.44,88,000/-, Rs,.5,00,000/- and Rs. 2,14,500/-
respectively on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank
account, income from undisclosed sources which was shown in
the garb of agricultural income and Long-term capital gains not
declared in the return of income.
3 ITA No. 2033/Del/2019
The Assessee being aggrieved preferred first appeal before
the ld. Commissioner, on the ground of validity of the notice u/s.
148 of the Act as well as on merits, who vide impugned order
affirmed the additions on legal aspects, as well as on merits by
concluding as under:
“Even at the appellate stage, the appellant has given no specific details in respect of his claim. The reference to appellate orders passed in his case in A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2013-14 favouring him has no bearing in the year under consideration as there is no evidence on record to justify his claims for this year.”
Before us, the Assessee has filed various documents and
claimed that though the Assessee has provided the relevant
documents to the ld. Commissioner, however, he failed to
consider the same.
On the contrary, the ld. DR supported the orders passed by
the authorities below and refuted the claim of the Assessee.
4 ITA No. 2033/Del/2019
Having heard the parties and perused the material available
on record and given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts
and circumstances, we observe that the ld. Commissioner
affirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the
absence of evidence on record, to justify the Assessee’s claims
for the year under consideration. At this stage, we are not
inclined to delve into the controversy as to whether the Assessee
had filed relevant documents before the appellate authority or
not. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances
and for the end of the litigation and for just decision of the case,
we are inclined to remand the case to the file of the ld.
Commissioner for decision afresh by considering the documents
as placed before us, which are to be placed by the Assessee
before the ld. Commissioner. The ld. Commissioner shall afford
reasonable opportunity of being heard, if necessitates. The
Assessee is also directed to file the relevant documents, as may
be needed by the ld. Commissioner for proper adjudication of the
issues involved.
5 ITA No. 2033/Del/2019
In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands
allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2023.
Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
*aks/-
