Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI “SMC-1” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM :
This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011-12 is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-21, New Delhi dated 27.05.2016. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-
“That the assessment order dated 21.3.2014 passed by the Ld/- AO u/s 144 rws 143(3) of the Income Tax Act ('the Act') is unjustified and bad in law and deserves to be quashed.
That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld/- CIT(A) has erred in sustaining an addition of account of adding the entire cash deposit of Rs. 19,79,00/- appearing in saving bank account number 533010100017912 of Axis Bank Limited and of Rs. 11,44,000/- appearing in saving bank account number 19630110001073 of UCO Bank Limited as unexplained cash deposit
u/s 68, thus making addition of Rs. 31,23,000/- in the hands of the assessee which is unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law.
3. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld/- AO and CIT(A) has erred in treating the deposit of Rs. 6,10,000/- appearing in saving bank account number 533010100017912 of Axis Bank Limited as unexplained cash deposit u/s 68, thus making an addition of Rs. 6,10,000/- in the hands of the assessee which is unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law.
4. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld/- AO and CIT(A) has erred in adding a sum of Rs. 825/- as undisclosed interest income in the hands of the assessee which is arbitrary, unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law.
5. That on the facts of the case and under the law, the Ld/- AO and CIT(A) has erred in disallowing the admissible deduction claimed u/s 80C amounting to Rs. 32,574/- which is unjustified, uncalled for and bad in law.
6. The Ld/- AO and CIT(A) has erred in law and facts of the case in alleging non- compliance and non-cooperation on the part of the Assessee, which is highly unjustified, arbitrary, bad in law and uncalled for.”
2. The facts giving rise to the preset appeal are that the case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment. The assessment u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was framed vide order dated 21.03.2014. During the assessment proceedings, there was no representation on various dates and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act was issued on 28.02.2014 fixing the date of hearing on 06.03.2014. On 07.03.2014, one Sh. Prasoon Aggarwal, CA appeared and filed Power of Attorney and reasons for non-attending earlier and details as already called for vide various notices. The Assessing Officer adjourned the case to 10.03.2014 and on that date i.e. 10.03.2014, no one appeared. Therefore, the Assessing Officer proceeded to frame best judgement assessment on the basis of material available on record. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.37,33,000/- on account of cash deposits in Axis Bank Account No.533010100017912 and Rs.11,44,000/- on account of cash deposited in UCO Bank account No.19630110001073. However, the Assessing Officer made addition on account of undisclosed interest income of Rs.825/- and disallowance of deduction u/s 80C of the Act of Rs.32,574/-.
Aggrieved against this, the assessee is in appeal before Ld.CIT(A) who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal on the ground that before him also, there was want of prosecution of appeal by the assessee.
Now, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.
Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that in the interest of principle of natural justice, the assessee may be given an opportunity to represent his case. He contended that while framing the best judgement u/s 144 of the Act, the Assessing Officer failed to take note of and consider the material available on record. He further contended that authorities below ought to have been lenient in the interest of justice, as there was reasonable cause so far been attending and filing the requisite details. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submits that an opportunity may be given to the assessee for representing his case before the authorities below. He further submitted that the assessee undertakes to co-operate before the Assessing Officer if the case is restored for denovo assessment.
On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of authorities below. He submitted that the assessee had been negligent throughout. He took me through the order of Ld.CIT(A) and the assessment order to demonstrate that various opportunities were granted to the assessee by the authorities below. He submitted that the assessee was grossly negligent hence, deserves no indulgence by the Hon’ble Tribunal.
I have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on record. It is contended by the assessee before the authorities below that due to bank account became inoperative, he was unable to procure his bank statements, hence opportunity be given to the assessee. He undertakes to furnish the requisite details before the authorities below. It was incumbent upon the assessee to be vigilant and attend the proceedings as directed by the authorities. It is not the case where the assessee was not given sufficient opportunity. However, considering the facts that there was a reasonable cause related to bank account and the assessee was not in a position to supply bank statements. Therefore, in the interest of principle of natural justice, I hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee before Ld.CIT(A) to decide the appeal of the assessee afresh. The assessee would himself appear before Ld.CIT(A) after obtaining a copy of this order. The assessee would not seek any adjournment except in the extra ordinary event and extremely unavoidable circumstances. Thus, Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing in the presence of both the parties on 28th April, 2021.