Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
Year : 2010-11] vs ITO, Vijay Kumar, H.no.612, Gali No.14, Kailash Nagar, Ward-2(5), Ghaziabad-201001. Ghaziabad. PAN-ALFPK1550P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Sanjiv Mahajan, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 28.02.2022 Date of Pronouncement 17.03.2022 ORDER
PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2010- 11 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-I, Ghaziabad dated 30.09.2019. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
1) “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) & AO has erred in facts by ignoring the facts of the case since the reasons recorded for reopening of case U/s 148 indicate is that cash deposits aggregating to Rs 29,90,000/- have been made in the savings bank account of the assessee which is not a valid reason for initiating proceedings u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act,1961.
2) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the amount deposited in saving bank account in question does not belong to assessee "Vijay Singh" but to some other person with same name Vijay Singh who is employee of CISF. It is clear case of double PAN issued by department as also evident from Form 26-AS. Aadhar no. of other Vijay Singh as 4722-2801-2560 while the assessee's Aadhar no. is 9346-4339-4645,which clearly shows that this cash deposited in bank does not pertain to assessee. 3) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. AO has erred in law and on facts in making the addition of Rs.29,90,000/- as income from other sources which does not pertains to us. 4) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, CIT(Appeal) has erred in law and on facts by ignoring the submission before them. In our submission to CIT(A) we mentioned that we have requested the ITO to provide the certified copy of order ,all notices & other document on basis on which assessment order has been passed. The A.O. has not provided the same till date the reason best known to A.O. Neither CIT(Appeal) has provided sufficient time nor called for relevant record from A.O. and Thus, opportunity of being heard not provided to us. 5) That in any case and any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in making the impugned addition/disallowance and framing the impugned assessment order which is contrary to law and facts, void ab initio, beyond jurisdiction, and without giving adequate Page | 2 opportunity of hearing, by recording incorrect facts and findings and the same is not sustainable on various legal and factual grounds. 6) That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 2348 & 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 7) That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”
2. At the time of hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is seen from the record that on last date of hearing, one Shri Surender Patel, Advocate attended the hearing and requested for adjournment. Under these facts, the appeal is taken up for hearing in the absence of the assessee and the material available on record.
FACTS OF THE CASE
Brief facts of the case are that a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued with the prior approval of PCIT, Ghaziabad by the Assessing Officer on the ground that as per AIR information available, the assessee had deposited cash amounting to Rs.29,90,000/- during the Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment Year 2010-11 in the bank account. The said notice Page | 3 remained uncomplied. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer [“AO”] issued statutory notice u/s 142(1) of the Act. However, neither the assessee filed any response nor any person on his behalf attended the proceedings. Under these facts, the Assessing Officer proceeded to make addition of the entire cash deposit into the bank account of the assessee u/s 144 of the Act.
Aggrieved against this, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who called upon the assessee to file the bank statement and other details. However, no information was supplied by the assessee to the Ld.CIT(A) who therefore, in the absence of requisite evidence, dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld.Sr.DR supported the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that the assessee failed to furnish the requisite details before the authorities below. He could not explain the justification of cash deposited in the bank account and the source of such deposits.
He contended that under the facts of the present case, action of the authorities below are justified in making and sustaining the addition.
Therefore, no interference is called for.
I have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is seen from the records that the assessee vide letter dated 27.11.2021 sought adjournment. The case was adjourned to 28.02.2022. On this date, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee.
In the letter dated 27.11.2021, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that an application has been filed before the assessing authority seeking the documents/information available with the assessing authority. It is further stated that the requisite documents/information was not made available to him by the AO. It is stated that this is a peculiar case as the PAN No. was used by some other person who was employee of Central Government [CISF Unit] which is also evident from Form 26AS. In the Form 26AS, it is seen that name of the deductor was shown as Office of the Commandant CISF Unit SPM, Hoshangabad in Form 26AS. It is stated by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the assessee was never in the service of CISF so there was no question of deduction of tax. The case of the assessee is that the Revenue has issued same PAN No. to two persons. It is stated that the amount deposited in the saving A/c in question does not belong to the assessee and related to some other person with the same name who was employee of CISF.
It is stated that this amount deposited in the bank account does not pertain to the assessee.
7.1. It is seen from the record that the assessee was asked to provide bank details and bank accounts held with him in the banks.
The information was not provided by the assessee. Looking to peculiarity of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the considered view to sub-serve the interest of substantive justice and in the interest of principle of natural justice, the assessee should be given an opportunity to represent his case effectively. Therefore, I hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment to the file of the AO to make assessment afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is hereby, directed to cooperate in the assessment proceedings and provided all the bank statements, details and evidences as held with him during the relevant Assessment Year. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.