JAGBIR SINGH PAWARIA,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD - 1, ROHTAK

The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011- 12 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak dated 18.02.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the order of the Ld. CIT (Appeals) is against law and facts.

The present appeal of the assessee is barred by time. However, an application seeking condonation of delay has been filed. It is stated in the application that the impugned order dated 18.02.2019 was served upon the Ld. Counsel for the assessee on 22.02.2019. However, the order was not supplied to the assessee. A copy of certificate from the Ld. Counsel for the assessee is also enclosed with it. It is stated that the impugned order was handed over to the assessee only in the first week of the November, 2020. Page | 2

The present appeal is filed on 29.01.2021. It is seen that even after receipt of the order in the month of Novemebr, 2020, the appeal has been filed on 29.01.2021. Looking to the submissions and the facts about the spread of Covid-19 pandemic subsequent to the receipt of the order to the assessee, I am of the considered view that the assessee was prevented by reasonable cause for not attending the proceedings within time prescribed. Therefore, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.

Ground No.1 of the assessee’s appeal is general in nature, needs no separate adjudication.

Ground No.2 is against the confirming of addition of Rs.18,00,000/-.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee, Shri Naveen Gupta submitted that the impugned addition is arbitrary and unjustified on account of the fact that the authorities below failed to take note of the fact that there were deposits and withdrawals in the bank accounts of the assessee. It was further stated that the explanation regarding deposit of cash out of withdrawals was not considered by the authorities below. He submitted that before Ld.CIT(A), additional evidences were filed but the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider these additional evidences. Moreover, the assessee had contended that the addition made u/s 68 of the Act, is illegal as the assessee was having salary income and was not maintaining any books of accounts. This contention of the assessee was summarily rejected and the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) is contrary to the binding precedents.

On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below.

I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Before authorities below, the assessee had filed certain evidences which were summarily rejected by the Ld.CIT(A) without considering or verifying the veracity of the same. Therefore, the action of the Ld.CIT(A) in rejecting the application for additional evidences under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962, do not conform the requirement of principle of natural justice. Therefore, I deem it proper and in the interest of natural justice, admit the additional evidences and restore this issue to the file of AO to verify the correctness of the evidences filed by the assessee and decide the issue afresh. Thus, Ground No.2 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Ground No.3 raised by the assessee is against the confirming of addition of Rs.31,945/- made by the AO on account of alleged saving bank interest.

Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that authorities below were not justified in making the addition regarding bank interest.

On the contrary, Ld.Sr.DR opposed these submissions and submitted that the assessee had not disclosed this income. Therefore, the authorities below were justified in sustain the addition.

I have heard the contentions of the rival parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. Ld. Counsel for the assessee could not controvert the findings of the AO that the interest income was not disclosed in the return of income. Therefore, I do not see any reason to interfere in the finding of the authorities below, the same is hereby rejected.

Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is against the treating a sum of Rs.5,17,560/- as agricultural income of the assessee. However, it is stated by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that this income belongs to the Hindu Undivided Family (“HUF”). Therefore, the income could not have been attributed to the assessee.

On the contrary, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee has not furnished any evidences in support of its submissions that the income belong to HUF.

I have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The contention of the assessee is that the income of Rs.5,17,560/- was wrongly disclosed in the return of income of the assessee as his income however, belonged to HUF. It was also stated that the agricultural land belong to HUF. This contention of the assessee that the agricultural income was wrongly included in the return of income and the land belongs to HUF requires verification at the end of the AO. Therefore, this issue is restored to the file of AO for verifying the correctness of the contention of the assessee that this income belongs to HUF. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is thus, allowed for statistical purposes.

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