AMIT KUMAR LALIT,GURGAON vs. DCIT, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3363/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 November 2022AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the additional evidence furnished by the assessee, even if considered as such, should not be brushed aside. In the interest of justice, the issues were restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh examination.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was selected for scrutiny, and the assessment order was framed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act. The primary basis for the assessment was cash deposits totaling Rs. 65,79,400/- in the assessee's bank accounts, for which no plausible reply was provided.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence and whether the AO erred in making additions without considering the assessee's explanations and evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. N.K. BILLAIYA & SH. KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 09/11/2022Pronounced: 09/11/2022

Appellant None Respondent Sh. Jeetender Chand, SR. DR Date of hearing: 09/11/2022 Date of Pronouncement: 09/11/2022 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-1, Gurgaon dated 28.03.2016 pertaining to A.Y.2011- 12. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in form No.36 reads as under :-

1. That the order of Ld. A.O. is bad in Law and against facts of the case.

2. That the Ld A.O. erred in not considering the documents/ details furnished in various hearings and without providing adequate opportunity.

3. That the Ld. A.O. was not sure and made the assessment u/s 143(3) as well as u/s 144 of the Act.

4. That the ld. A.O. erred in invoking provisions of section 68 and making additions thereunder.

5. That the Ld. A.O. erred in making addition of Rs. 65,79,400/-. 6. That the Ld. A.O. erred in making disallowance of HRA deduction of Rs. 1,80,000/-. 7. That the CIT (A) erred in not accepting additional evidences under rule 46A. 8. That the Ld. A.O. also erred in not following various judgments of jurisdictional High Court and IT AT.

9. That the appellant carves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the ground of appeal

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee inpsite of several notices, therefore, we decided to proceed exparte.

4.

The DR was heard at length. Case records carefully perused.

5.

Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessment order dated 31.03.2014 is framed u/s.144 of the Act exparte. The basis for scrutiny selection of the return of income is the cash deposited in the bank account maintained by the assessee with different banks totalling to Rs.65,79,400/-. The assessee was asked to explain the source of cash deposited in various bank accounts. On receiving no plausible reply and being forced to frame assessment exparte, the AO computed the assessed income as under :- Income of the assessee for the A.Y2011-12 is re-assessed as under : Returned income : Rs.12,47,020/- Add(as discussed in para 2) : Rs.65,79,400/- Add(as discussed in para 3) : Rs.1,80,000/- Add(as discussed in para 4) : Rs.5,215/- Assessed Income : Rs.80,11,635/-

6.

The assessee carried the matter before the CIT(A) and filed additional evidences in support of his explanation relating to the source of the cash deposit in various bank accounts. The additional evidences were not admitted by the CIT(A) citing technical reasons based upon the report of the AO.

7.

Having carefully perused the orders of the authorities below. We are of the considered view that the evidences furnished by the assessee even if they have the colour of additional evidences cannot be brushed aside lightly.

8.

In the interest of justice and fair play we deem it fit to restore the entire issues to the files of the AO. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary evidences explaining the source of cash deposits and other issues and the AO is directed to examine the same and decide the quarrel afresh after giving a reasonable and sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

9.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

10.

Decision announced in the open court on 09.11.2022.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →