Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-2’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE
ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 24/06/2019 passed by the CIT(A)- 11, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2011-12.
The grounds of appeal are as under:-
1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the initiation of reassessment proceedings u/s 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961 as well as the resultant order of reassessment flowing there from dated 11.12.2018 passed by the ld. AO Ward-31(3), New Delhi u/s 143(3)/147 of the Act for AY 2011-12 as valid, which otherwise, is illegal and is bad in law for want of requisite jurisdiction, as the mandatory requirements to assume jurisdiction did not exist or have not been complied with apart from being contrary to the principles of Natural Justice and consequently, the same is liable to be annulled.
2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by Ld AO and not tenable as the notice Issued U/s 148 by the Ld AO Ward 44(2), New Delhi is issued without seeking any permission which is in contravention to the provisions of Section 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961,and is illegal and need to be quashed
3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by Ld AO on flimsy ground ignoring the wrong facts in the order passed by the Ld AO regarding information about the CASH DEPOSIT of Rs. 11,98,172/-, when no such cash is every deposited in the Bank Account and no such transaction exist in the bank account.
4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by Ld AO and not tenable because of granting the approval only on a mechanical manner u/s 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and without application of mind
5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by Ld AO because invoking provisions of law U/s 147 of the Act only on upon the borrowed information without application of mind.
6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by Ld AO ignoring the wrong facts in the order passed by the Ld AO regarding issuance of notice to verify the material on records before the initiation of proceeding U/s 147 when no such letter is ever issued and available on record.
7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld AO ignoring the wrong facts in the order passed by the Ld AO regarding issuance of Show Cause Notice, mandatorily required to make addition U/s 69A when no such Show Cause Notice is ever issued and available on record.
8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld AO ignoring the third party confirmation from the office of the Chief Manager, Salcet Branch, Delhi that transaction pertains to Fixed Deposit of Rs. 3,00,000/- dt. 10/12/2010, and just renewed on various dates and amount alleged to be deposited is cash is a concocted storey with ulterior motive to harass the assessee.
9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld AO ignoring the fact that Ld AO passed the order without application of mind, against the principle of natural justice, satisfaction recorded on mechanical manner, for want of requisite jurisdiction, additions made were on flimsy ground without addressing the reason recorded first and without considering the submission of the assessee and rejected the documents without verification, and for want of requisite jurisdiction.
10. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in upholding the additions made by the Ld AO ignoring the fact that Ld AO passed the order without application of mind, against the principle of natural justice, satisfaction recorded on mechanical manner, for want of requisite jurisdiction, additions made were on flimsy ground without addressing the reason recorded first and without considering the submission of the assessee and rejected the documents without verification, and for want of requisite jurisdiction.
11. That the order passed by Ld.CIT(A) 15 upholding the addition of Rs.8,71094/- made by Ld. A.O is bad both in law and facts and non est and need to be quashed.”
3. The assessee is a salaried employee and has a small business of plying and hiring of goods carriage. Individual transaction statement available with the Revenue Department shows that the assessee had cash deposited in bank of Rs. 11,98,172/- during the Financial Year 2010-11 pertaining to Assessment Year 2011-12. The assessee had not filed his ITR for that period. Notice u/s 148 was issued on 24/3/3018 and was duly served upon the assessee in response to the notice u/s 148, the assessee filed his ITR on 9/10/2018 declaring total income of Rs. 2,12,520/-. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 9,10,172/- u/s 69 A thereby stating that the assessee has made unexplained cash credits from undisclosed sources.
Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has furnished all the relevant documents while the CIT(A) has not taken cognizance of the same and restricted disallowance only to the extent of Rs.8,71,094/- and deleted the balance amount of Rs. 39,078/- subject to verification by Assessing Officer . The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) has not decided the legal issue involved in the present Assessment Year, therefore, remand back this matter to the file of the CIT(A).
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order, order of the CIT(A) and the remand report of the Assessing Officer .
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. From the perusal of the submissions on behalf of the Ld. AR it can be seen that there are certain documents which are relevant to the restricted disallowance before the CIT(A). The same should have been taken into consideration by the CIT(A) which was not done in the present case. Besides, this the legal issue contested by the assessee was not dealt by the CIT (A). Hence, it will be appropriate to remand back the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer and decide both legal issue as well as merit of the case. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.
In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in the open court in both the parties on this 01st day of March, 2021.