SMT. JAGJIT KAUR,PATIALA vs. ITO, W-2(3), CHANDIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 913/CHANDI/2019Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh09 July 2021AY 2009-105 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was deprived of a fair opportunity of being heard and that the matter should be restored back to the Assessing Officer for a speaking order. The assessee was directed to ensure full participation before the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) without affording a proper opportunity of being heard. The addition of Rs. 18,71,000/- was made on account of alleged unexplained bank deposits, which the assessee claimed were from the sale of agricultural land.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an order in contravention of Section 250(6) by not providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard, and whether the addition under Section 69A was justified without proper inquiry.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM

For Appellant: Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A
For Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT

Hearing conducted via Webex आदेश/ORDER

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee wherein the corre ctness of the order dated 31.12.2018 of CIT(A)-2 Chandigarh pertaining to 2010-11 assessme nt year is assailed on the following grounds :

1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A) in Appeal No. 844/11-12 has erred in passing that order in contravention of the provisions of S. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the impugned orders passed by Worthy CIT(A) as well as by the Ld. AO deserve to be set-

ITA 913/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 Page 2 of 5 aside and the matter deserves to be remanded back since the appellant was not afforded reasonable opportunity of being heard and there existed reasonable cause for non-appearance on the dates of hearing fixed by the Worthy CIT(A) as well as by the Ld. AO.

3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 18,71,000/- on account of alleged unexplained amount deposited in bank account u/s 69A of the Act even when the said amount had been received from the sale of agricultural land by the appellant as per the agreement to sell.

4. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal on or before the disposal of the same.”

2.

The ld. AR inviting attention to the adjournment application filed on record submitted that the assessee who had earlier contemplated opting for 'Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme, 2020’ had ultimately not availed of the said scheme and chosen to argue the appeal on me rits, hence moved an adjournment application seeking time to prepare. However, considering the record, it was his submission that the adjournment application may be considered to be withdrawn on his oral request as he is ready to argue the appeal on merits. Noting that no objection was posed by the ld. DR the request for withdrawal of the adjournment request was permitted and the parties were required to argue the appeal on merits.

3.

The ld. AR inviting attention to ground No. 2 in the present appeal submitted that the appeal of the assessee was dismissed after considering the written submissions

ITA 913/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 Page 3 of 5 explaining the deposit of funds from sale of various properties. The assessee, it was submitted, was confident that the explanation was sufficient. However, if there was any deficiency in the explanation and further clarification/elaboration was required, then the First Appellate Authority in all fairness should have provided an opportunity of being heard. Referring to the record, it was his submission that no such opportunity has been provided and considering the written submissions relying upon the assessment order, the addition made by the AO has been confirmed. Accordingly, it was his prayer that in the facts of the present case, the assessee has been deprived of a fair opportunity of being heard. It was also his submission that in the case of the assessee in the immediately subsequent assessment year i.e. 2010-11 assessment year, the ITAT vide order dated 13.10.2020 in I TA No. 1037/CHD/2019 has remanded the issue back to the AO. Remand back to the AO on similar lines was requested. It was elaborated that there may be some issues which are common therein and may require to be addressed by the AO. Accordingly, instead of remanding the issue back to the file of the CIT(A), it was his request that the remand back may be directed to the AO.

ITA 913/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 Page 4 of 5

4.

The ld. Sr.DR Mr. Arvind Sudershan on considering the record had no objection to the said request.

5.

I have heard the submissions and pe rused the material on record. In the facts of the present case, it is seen that the AO has take note of the fact that some ancestral land in 4 installments was sold by the assessee on various dates and the explanation called forth for deposit of Rs. 33,20,000/- was found to be partly acceptable and addition of Rs. 18,71,000/- was made in the hands of the asse ssee. It is seen that the assessee in her explanation before the AO has stated that the amount deposited in her bank account were received from purchaser Shri Kuldip Singh and the amounts have been spent by her for settling her children and in their marriage etc. and since she could not produce Shri Kuldip Singh or furnish his statement, the additions stood confirmed. It is seen that in the subsequent assessment years, source of deposits is stated to be by way of sale of properties etc. Accordingly, in order to take a wholistic view on the issues which may have a commonality on facts, the restore back to the AO is we4ll founded. Accordingly, on considering the entire material available on record, it is deemed appropriate to set aside the impugned order back to the file of the AO with direction to pass a speaking order in ITA 913/CHD/2019 A.Y. 2009-10 Page 5 of 5 accordance with law. The assessee in its own interests is directed to ensure full and proper participation before the said authority as failing which it is made clear the AO would be at liberty to pass an order in accordance with law. Said order was pronounced at the time of virtual hearing itself in the presence of the parties via Webex.

6.

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

Order pronounced on 9 t h July,2021.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →