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 11/06/2019 passed by the CIT(A)- 42, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2016-17.
The grounds of appeal
are as under:-
1. The action of the Ld, CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Ld. AO in adding a sum of Rs.3,25,811/- being the sums credited in the Bank A/c of the assessee is illegal arbitrary, unwarranted uncalled for the against the facts and circumstances of the case: Date Amount Source as Explained by assessee 18.04.2015 Rs. 1,00,000/- Funds from my mother 30.09.2015 Rs. 1,00,000/- Transfer from my brother Sanjay Govil
21.10.2015 Rs. 1,00,000/- Transfer from my brother Sanjay Govil 04.05.2015 Rs. 23, 085/- Ajay Gupta landlord payment for repairs 11.03.2106 Rs. 47,729/- Refund of expenses from Marketnomix
2. The action of the Ld.CIT(A) in not accepting/admitting additional evidence submitted during appellate proceedings under R.46A is illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted, uncalled for and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
3. The action of the Ld. C1T(A) in coming to the conclusion (hat the Appellant has failed to demonstrate its case of sufficient opportunity not being given, is illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted, uncalled for and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. The action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of the Ld, AO in not accepting returned income is illegal, arbitrary, unwarranted, uncalled for and against the facts and circumstances of the case.”
The assessee filed his return of income for the concerned assessment year declaring taxable income of Rs. 4,11,670/-. The Assessing Officer identified following credit entries in ICICI Savings Bank account of the assessee for enquiry. In this regard, the assessee submitted explanation regarding source of each credit entry as shown in the table below: Sr. No Date Amount Deposited Assessee’s explanation (Rs.) regarding soruce 1 18.04.2015 100000 Funds from my mother 2 30.09.2015 100000 Transfer from my brother Sanay Govil 3 21.10.2015 100000 Transfer from my brother Sanay Govil 4 04.05.2015 23085 Ajay Gupta landlord payment for repairs 5 11.03.2016 44003 Refudn of deposit from Regus 6 11.03.2016 46729 Refund of expenses form Marketnomix In view of the above submission, the Assessing Officer accepted the explanation in respect of credit of Rs. 44,003/- as per the evidence relating to copy of HSBC account and copy of account of Regus which was duly filed. However, as regards others credits, the Assessing Officer observed that the corroborative evidence was not filed. Accordingly, the Assessing Officer held it to be unexplained credits u/s 68/69A of the Act and made addition of Rs. 3,69,814/-.
Being aggrieved by the order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.
The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is a resident but not ordinary resident and the period given for filing reply was insufficient before the Assessing Officer related to the additions made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, proper opportunity was not given to the assessee during the assessment proceedings. The Ld. AR further submitted that the CIT(A) also has ignored the application under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence filed by the assessee. Therefore, the Ld. AR submitted that the additional evidence may be admitted and the matter may be remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer.
The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).
We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that both the Assessing Officer has not given proper opportunity of filing the evidence to the Assessee during the assessment proceedings and even the CIT(A) did not admit the additional evidence submitted before the CIT(A) under Rule 46 Application. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer after taking into account the additional evidences filed by the Assessee and after verifying the additional evidence the Assessing Officer should pass appropriate order. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.