Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE “SMC” BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
Appellant by Smt. Neha Gupta, A.R. Respondent by Shri K.G. Goyal, Sr.D.R. Date of Hearing: 27.11.2019 Date of Pronouncement: 04.12.2019 आदेश / O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, J.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against order of the CIT(A)-1, Bhopal dated 9.3.2018 pertaining to the assessment year 2008-09. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
[ Shyam Singh Rai, Piparya]
The case of the assessee was reopened for assessment and notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as ‘the Act’) was issued on 5.10.2009.
Thereafter, the assessing officer passed assessment order
[ Shyam Singh Rai, Piparya] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act. The A.O. during the assessment proceedings noticed that there was cash deposits of Rs.35,06,090/- in the saving bank account of the assessee. Since there was no representation on behalf of the assessee, the A.O. passed best judgement by making addition of cash deposits and the deposit made by the cheque. Hence, the A.O. made addition of Rs.41,47,030/-.
The assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A), who partly allowed the appeal. Thereby, he sustained the addition of Rs.28,68,652/-. The assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. Ld. Counsel for the assessee Ms. Neha Gupta argued that before Ld. CIT(A) additional evidences were filed as before the A.O. the assessee was not provided sufficient opportunity to submit the evidences. Ld. Counsel further submitted that Ld. CIT(A) did not admit additional evidences, had the Ld. CIT(A) considered the evidences, the addition should have been deleted.
[ Shyam Singh Rai, Piparya]
Per contra, Ld. D.R. vehemently opposed the submissions and submitted that the A.O. had given sufficient opportunities to the assessee. Now the assessee cannot be allowed to play hide and seek. He should come clean and furnish the evidences as called for.
I have heard the rival submissions, perused the materials available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Ld. CIT(A) has decided the appeal by observing as under:
[ Shyam Singh Rai, Piparya]
[ Shyam Singh Rai, Piparya]
From the finding of the Ld. CIT(A), it is evident that the evidences filed by the assessee were not appreciated. In my considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) should have given a chance to the assessee to explain the deposits made in bank account as before the A.O. there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. Under the peculiarity of the facts of the present case, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have taken a liberal approach and admitted the additional evidences. Those evidences in his view were sufficient explanation for the deposit made in the bank
[ Shyam Singh Rai, Piparya] account. I therefore, set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and admitted the evidences and restore the matter to A.O. to verify the veracity of the evidences filed by the assessee and if he finds that the evidences are sufficient to prove the source of deposit, he would delete the addition. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order was pronounced in the open court on 04 .12.2019.