Loading judgment…
Facts
The revenue challenged an order passed by the CIT(A). The assessee applied for additional evidence, submitting the assessment order of her husband, as a joint bank account was involved. The assessee argued that since the amount was already added to her husband's income, it should not be added to hers to avoid double additions.
Held
The Tribunal allowed the assessee's application for additional evidence, admitting the husband's assessment order. The Tribunal found the submission reasonable and restored the matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration in light of the new evidence, emphasizing the avoidance of double additions.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) order needs to be reconsidered based on additional evidence of the husband's assessment order to avoid double addition of a joint account's deposit.
Sections Cited
250, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH MUMBAI
Date of Hearing 10.03.2025 Date of Pronouncement 11.03.2025 आदेश / ORDER
PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM:
The present appeal has been filed by the revenue challenging the impugned order 12.12.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi / CIT(A), for the A.Y 2017- 18.
At the very outset, Ld. AR has moved an application for leading additional evidences, thereby placing on record the order of assessment passed in the case of her husband.
After having heard counsels for both the parties, I am of the view that as per the facts of the present case the assessment was selected for ‘limited scrutiny to verify the cash deposited by the assessee during the demonetization period’ and as per the assessee she had joint account in Corporation bank with bearing account No. 002000101041324 in which a sum of Rs. 7,76,500/- were deposited. Since it was joint account in the name of assessee and at husband and had no stage assessee had operated this bank account, whereas the said account was being operated by the husband of the assessee. It was also submitted that the assessment order in the case of the husband of the assessee has already been passed and the sum of Rs. 7,76,500/- deposited in the Corporation bank has been added while framing the assessment. Therefore it is now relevant to place on record the copy of the assessment order so as to prove that addition cannot be made simultaneously made in the hands of both i.e assessee as well as to her husband.
To my mind the submissions made by the assessee are quite reasonable and the assessment order passed in the hand of husband of the assessee is an important document which goes to the roots of the case. Therefore considering these facts the application for additional evidence filed by the assessee is allowed and the documents placed on record is admitted as additional evidence.
Since I have allowed the application for leading additional evidence therefore in my view the matter needs to be restored bank to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the issue afresh in view of the order of assessment passed in the hands of husband of the assessee where the joint account maintained at Corporation bank was taken into consideration and the amount in question was added in the hands of the husband of the assessee in order to avoid double additions which is even otherwise not permissible in law. With these directions matter stands restored to the file of CIT(A). The assessee shall not seek any adjournment on frivolous grounds and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings.
Before parting, we make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute which shall be adjudicated by the Ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.