RAM AVTAR BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 61(2), NEW DELHI

The assessee is a practicing Chartered Accountant and filed income tax return declaring income of Rs. 2,58,100/- and derived salary/interest from its partnership firm M/s R A Bansal and Company and income from other sources. The Assessing Officer assessed the income of Rs. 40,89,100/- by adding a sum of Rs. 38,31,000/- on account of unexplained income which pertains to cash deposit in UCO Bank. During the Financial Year 2010-11, regarding cash deposit of Rs.38,31,000/-. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer that the assessee is having joint saving bank account with his mother and his mother is the first applicant and the assessee is a second joint applicant. The assessee submitted that out of total sum of Rs. 38,31,000/-, amount of Rs. 18,94,000/- was received from Smt. Sheela Jain as advanced payment in respect of agreement to sale dated 1/4/2010. The assessee further submitted before the Assessing Officer that Rs. 19,37,000/- was received as advanced against agreement of sale deed dated 3/3/2011 and house from Shri O. P. Sangwan out of total amount of Rs. 42 lacs. The Assessing Officer called the details of buyers and also wrote letters to the buyers. The written replies of the buyers were before the Assessing Officer received on 27/2/2014 and 10/3/2014. In the meantime, the assessee repaid the entire sum of advance taken from both the parties and also submitted their affidavit regarding satisfaction of dues and cancellation of agreement of sale of properties.

Thereafter the Assessing Officer on 22/12/2017 passed a fresh assessment order thereby sustaining the additions of Rs. 18,94,000/-and Rs. 19,37,000/-.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has totally ignored the directions given by the Tribunal wherein it is clearly stated that the matter requires examination at the level of Assessing Officer as the assessee has attached the documentary evidence which is after the passing of the assessment order which was not before the Assessing Officer and the said evidence established the creditworthiness of the creditors. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer has not at all discussed the evidence in the remand proceedings.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

We have both the parties and perused the material available on record. After going through the assessment Order and the order of the CIT(A), it can be seen that as per the directions of the Tribunal vide order dated 02.02.2017, the Assessing Officer has to take proper cognizance of the documentary evidences produced before the CIT(A) at that stage. But while passing the fresh Assessment Order, the Assessing Officer has not given any clear findings as relating to the documentary evidence produced by the Assessee. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this matter to the file of the Assessing Officer to adjudicate the matter a fresh in light of the documentary evidences produced by the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

In result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced on this 12th Day of May, 2020.