Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DLEHI
Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH
ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee, wherein correctness of the order dated 12.12.2018 of CIT(A), Gurgaon pertaining to 2010-11 assessment year is assailed on the following grounds :
SNO. GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAX EFFECT That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice 1,07,233 1. u/sl48 issued by Id. Assessing Officer is bad in law.
2. That the assessment order passed by Ld AO is bad in law in 1,07,233 making addition in respect of cash deposit in bank account as “Unexplained other sources of income” u/s 69 of the Income tax Act.
3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 1,07,233 650,000 for cash deposit in bank u/s 69 despite having proof of business of Kiryana items instead of section 68 of the Income Tax Act.
4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs 1,07,233 650,000 for cash deposit in bank when sufficient cash in hand shown by appellant by submitting proper cash flow statement, the onus was shifted to Id. CIT (A) to pinpoint any defect or mistake for rejecting the same.
5. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in not giving claim for deduction u/s 80C against investment of Rs 1,00,000 in ULIP.
That the appellant craves for the permission to add, 6. modify, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal
2. At the time of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee. The appeal was passed over. In the second round, the position remained same. Accordingly, after considering the submissions of the ld. Sr. DR, it was deemed appropriate to proceed with the present appeal ex parte qua assessee on merits.
A perusal of record shows that the assessee is shown to be engaged in the trading business of Kiryana items. The assessee was required to justify the deposits of Rs.11,50,000/- in his bank account. The assessee as per its explanation before the tax authorities submitted that he is trading in Kiryana items and has income from sale of agricultural produce along with milk and Ghee and there are some cash receipts from his real brother Ram Avtar. Apart from that he has taken a ULIP from ICICI Pru Life Insurance for Rs.1,00,000/- on 02.05.2009 for which deduction u/s. 80C was claimed. The assessee is also found to have stated that “I am illiterate and a farmer and running of Kiryana shop in own house and do not have the knowledge to keep bills for the purchase/sale of Kiryana items for which I have made the payments in cash”. It is also found that he also made following submissions :
“In the month of August 2009 a Canteen holder who is supply foods in the factories for Labour has join with me to purchase Kiryana items and he had made the payment through cheque on various intervals of time. To supply the Kiryana items to the canteen holder I required Cash for the purchase of Kiryana items, as nobody is given me the credit and I have an opportunity to increase my business by supply Kiryana items to Canteen Holder I took cash from my brother to purchase and when the Canteen holder give me the cheque I withdraw it from the bank and paid it to my brother Ram Avtar at various intervals of time.” 3.1 Considering the same, part relief was granted by the ld. CIT(A) on account of withdrawals from bank account amounting to Rs.5,00,000/-. However, the addition was sustained in part for lack of evidence. The ld. Sr. DR pointed out that before the ld. CIT(A), no specific ground qua 80C deduction was raised. However, it is seen that in para 1.3 page 3 of the impugned order, following submissions of the assessee are extracted :
1.3. Further, vide written submission dated 03.12.2018 AR of the appellant submitted as under : “Under Chapter VI-A deduction u/s. 80C for ULIP from ICICI Pru Life Insurance for Rs.1,00,000/- on 02/05/2009 through cheque which is debited in my account on 02/05/2009.
On a consideration of the arguments before the ld. CIT(A) and the material available on record, I am of the view that the arguments canvassed on behalf of the Revenue by the ld. Sr. DR cannot be accepted. The assessee claims to be illiterate and the fact that he did not have the best of legal advice available, is glaring on the record as even proper and appropriate grounds could not be raised. The aim of the statute is to collect just and due taxes for the State and not encash the ignorance of the tax payers. The representation before the ld. CIT(A) admittedly was not proper. Accordingly, in the interests of substantial justice, the issues are set aside to the file of ld. CIT(A) with the direction to decide the same afresh in accordance with law by way of speaking order after giving the assessee a proper opportunity of being heard.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order was pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing itself.