Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE
Before: SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM
PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-5, Pune dated 11.06.2018 for the Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The ground raised by the assessee is as under :- “Addition of explanation cash deposit in bank. The learned A.O. have given the time for explaining the source of the deposit (sic). A.O. observed on the documentary evidence filed at the time of assessment on 22/11/2017. A.O. remarked on the said document that no further adjournment and case would be decided on merit. However, the Appellant requested to the A.O. to give at least two weeks to collect the documents and preparation of submission. However, A.O. have not given opportunity to him and made the addition. A.O., who otherwise has sufficient time to complete the assessment order, did not consider my plea and finalised assessment order (sic).”
From the above extracted ground, it is evident that the ground raised by the assessee is not in accordance with the said Rules of the ITAT. The said ground not only suffers from grammatical mistake but also is found to be augmented nature.
The issue as understand by me relates to the failure of the Assessing Officer in not granting adequate time to the assessee for filing the documentary evidences in support of sources of the cash deposits and also the detailed explanation to prove the genuineness of the source of cash deposits. The fact that the Assessing Officer hurriedly completed the assessment while he has adequate time to complete the assessment. Mentioning the same fact, the assessee raised the above extracted ground of appeal before us.
Bringing my attention to the above extracted ground, ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the time given by the Assessing Officer in the assessment proceedings is not in tune with the principles of natural justice. Otherwise, assessee has an explanation and the documentary evidences for furnishing before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) to demonstrate the genuineness of the transaction. Referring to the merits of the addition, ld. Counsel submitted and pleaded for granting one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Ld. AR submitted the genuineness of transaction. Notwithstanding the fact that the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) passed their respective orders in the presence of the assessee, the fact is that the time was not granted for filing the relevant documents caused injustice to the process adjudication. The ld. AR pleaded for setting aside the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer. Otherwise, there is no ground raised on merit of addition.
On hearing both the sides, I find the assessee raised this issue of inadequate time granted by the I.T. Authorities to the assessee and communicated the seriousness of the assessee in matter of pursuing the appeal. He submitted the fact of paying appeal fees as per the procedure. The assessee wants one more opportunity of hearing before the Assessing Officer to furnish the relevant documents for adjudication of the issue on merits. I find merit in the same. Accordingly, the request of the assessee is granted. The Assessing Officer is directed to pass a speaking order after granting one more opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, the ground raised by the assessee in this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on this 01st day of March, 2019. (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) लेखा सद" / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; "दनांक Dated : 01st March, 2019. Sujeet आदेश क" "ितिलिप अ"ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant;
""यथ" / The Respondent;
The CIT(A)-5, Pune;
The CCIT, Pune; िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे “एक-सद"य मामला” /
DR ‘SMC’, ITAT, Pune; गाड" फाईल / Guard file. 6. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"यािपत "ित //// Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune