YASH PAL JINDAL, 1233, SECTOR 10, AMBALA CITY, HARYANA,HARYANA vs. ASSESSING OFFICER, NFAC DELHI, JAO, INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, AMBALA, HARYANA

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income declaring income from salary, house property, other sources and a small business. The assessment was reopened under section 147 and concluded under section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The AO made an addition of Rs.15,00,000 under section 69A of the Act on account of unexplained cash deposits made into the assessee’s bank account.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) contending that the cash deposits were out of cash in hand available on 31.03.2012 after 2 closure of his liquor business. It was also submitted that all supporting documents, including balance sheets and bank statements, were filed during assessment proceedings and were also uploaded during appellate proceedings. However, the CIT(A) rejected the additional evidence filed under Rule 46A on the ground that the assessee failed to demonstrate why the same could not be filed before the AO despite sufficient opportunities.

Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

During the course of hearing, the assessee argued that the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal on technical grounds, ignoring the merits. The cash deposits and advance were explained by the 31.03.2012 cash balance, evidenced by the balance sheet, passbook, and affidavit.

Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the lower authorities.

Having heard the contentions of the parties and perused the record, we find that the CIT(A) has not properly appreciated the fact that the documents filed during appellate proceedings may have a crucial bearing on adjudication of the matter. Though the CIT(A) has rejected admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A, there is merit in the contention of the assessee that such documents were relevant and partly already available with the Department.

In view of the principles of natural justice and in the interest of fair adjudication, we are of the considered opinion that the matter should be 3 remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. The AO shall consider all the evidences including those produced before the CIT(A) and provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to present his case. We accordingly set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for denovo assessment after affording proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the fresh assessment proceedings and file all the requisite documents and explanations before the AO.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.