Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad SMC Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2016-17 against the order of the CIT (A)-3, Hyderabad, dated 12.06.2019.
Brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed his return of income for the A.Y 2016-17 admitting total income of Rs.5,36,834/- which comprised of remuneration of Rs.4,80,000/- received from a partnership firm M/s. S.K.R. Construction in which the assessee is one of the Partner and the income of Rs.56,834/- as income from other sources.
The return of income was selected for scrutiny through CAS and during the assessment proceedings u/s 143(3), and also as verified from the AIR data, the AO observed that the assessee has made cash deposits to the tune of Rs.12,04,250/-on various dates in his HDFC Bank bearing A/c No.16371000018044 and that there was no mention about this account in the information furnished by the assessee nor in the return of income. Therefore, the assessee was asked to furnish this Bank A/c statement along with sources for cash deposits. Sine there was no response from the assessee, the AO concluded that the assessee has no supporting documents to explain the sources of the deposit of Rs.12,04,250/- and the same was brought to tax. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT (A), but since none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the CIT (A) when the notice for hearing was given, the CIT (A) also confirmed the assessment order and the assessee is in second appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income- Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
2. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal without providing proper opportunity.
3. The learned Commissioner of Income- Tax(Appeals) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in making the addition of Rs.12,04,2S0j- representing cash deposits into the bank by applying the provisions of Sec.69A of the LT. Act.
4. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered that the appellant possessed substantial sources and deleted the addition made.
5. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming levy of interest u/s 234A, 234B and 234C of the I.T. Act.
6. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”.
The appeal was taken up for hearing through Video Conferencing.
The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that both the assessment order as well as the order of the CIT (A) are ex-parte the assessee and prayed for an opportunity to explain the sources of cash deposits. She has drawn my attention to the additional evidence filed by the assessee which are copies of the Bank A/c statement and the ledger in the Books of account of the Partnership Firm M/s. S.K.R. Construction to explain the availability of funds to make the deposits into the Bank A/c. She therefore, prayed for admission of additional evidence and remand the matter to the file of the AO for reconsideration.
The learned DR was also heard.
Having regard to the rival contentions and the material on record, I find that both the assessment as well as the CIT (A) orders are ex-parte the assessee, and the assessee has filed additional evidence before the Tribunal to explain the sources of the deposits. Therefore, I deem it fit and proper to admit the additional evidence and set aside the assessment order to the file of the AO for denovo assessment in accordance with law. Needless to mention that the assessee shall be given a fair opportunity of hearing.
In the result, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31st December, 2020.