Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘I(2
Before: MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 28/01/2019 passed by CIT(A)-Hisar, for Assessment Year 2016-17.
The grounds of appeal are as under:-
“1. That both the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act and, completion of assessment under section 147/143(3) of the Act were without jurisdiction and hence deserve to be quashed as such.
1.1. That since there was no specific relevant, reliable and tangible material on record to form a “reason to believe” that income of the appellant had escaped assessment and in view thereof the proceedings initiated are illegal u/s 147 of the Act, untenable and therefore unsustainable.
1.2. That reasons were recorded mechanically without application of mind and therefore do not constitute valid “reason to believe” for assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act.
1.3. That in absence of any valid approval obtained under section 151 of the Act, initiation of proceedings u/s 147 of the Act and assessment framed u/s 147/143(3) of the Act are invalid and deserve to be quashed as such.
2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has further erred both in law and on facts in disposing off the appeal ex-partee without granting any fair opportunity of being heard to the appellant.
2.1 That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that there was reasonable cause for the appellant for not causing appearance on the dates fixed for hearing and as such disposal of the appeal without granting fair, meaningful and proper opportunity is untenable.
2.2 That even otherwise, an order passed in limini without effectively disposing of the grounds raised by the appellant is infraction of section 250(6) of the Act and as such, order so made is otherwise too illegal, invalid and a vitiated order.
3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred both in law and on facts in upholding the addition of Rs. 10,00,000- representing alleged unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of the appellant.
That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has failed to appreciate that in absence of books of accounts maintained by the appellant section 68 of the Act has no application to the case of the appellant.
Prayer: It is therefore prayed that, it be held that order disposing of the appeal ex-parte by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) be set-aside. It is further prayed that assessment made by the learned Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals) deserves to be quashed as such. It is also prayed that, addition made and sustained by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted and, appeal of the appellant be allowed.
The assessee was having Saving Bank A/c in Indusland Bank as a joint holder with Sh. Krishan & Virender. There were cash deposits on different dates amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- for which addition has been made in the case of the assessee.
4. 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 CIT(A) has not decided the case on merit and dismiss the appeal for non prosecution. The Ld. AR submitted that the notice was not received by the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that there were cash deposits on different dates amounting to Rs. 10,00,000/- for which addition has been made in the case of the assessee without appreciating the fact that the account was held by three person jointly and other explanation of the assessee such as deposits were made by all the three persons from past savings.
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 the CIT(A) dismissed the matter for non prosecution and the reason for non appearing before the CIT(A) by the assessee is genuineness as the assessee has not received notice. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back the contesting issues to the file of the CIT(A) for proper adjudication. 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 on this 12 th Day of May, 2020.