PUNEET WASAN,LUDHIANA, PUNJAB, INDIA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER , AAYAKAR BHAWAN, RISHI NAGAR, LUDHIANA
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण,चडीगढ़ यायपीठ , चडीगढ़
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH
BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH
BEFORE: SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER,
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 81/CHD/2024
नधारण वष / Assessment Year : 2017-18
Shri Puneet Wasan,
Prop. M/s Puneet Textiles,
911, St. No.2, Sakhewal Road,
Ludhiana-141008. Vs
The ITO,
Ward 2(1),
Ludhiana.
थायी लेखा सं./PAN /TAN No: AAJPW4628H
अपीलाथ/Appellant
यथ/Respondent
नधारती क ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Bhalla,CA
राज व क ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT-Sr.DR
तार ख/Date of Hearing : 08.01.2025
उदघोषणा क तार ख/Date of Pronouncement : 16.01.2025
PHYSICAL HEARING
आदेश/ORDER
PER PARESH M. JOSHI, JM
This is an appeal filed by the assessee under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) before this Tribunal. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing
No.
ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058395565(1) dated
01.12.2023 passed by CIT(A) under Section 250 of the ITA 81/CHD/2024
A.Y. 2017-18
2
Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant assessment year is 2017-18 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2016 to 31.03.2017. 2. Factual Matrix
2.1 That the assessee filed his return of income on 23.10.2017 declaring total income of Rs.2,86,000/-.
2.2 That subsequently the case was selected for complete scrutiny by CASS.
2.3 That notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued through ITBA ‘e-assessment’ functionality on 20.08.2018 which was duly served upon the assessee on his latest e-mail on record, through Speed Post and also on 23.08.2018 through Notice Server.
2.4
That notices under Section 142(1) of the Act were issued alongwith detailed Questionnaire fixing case as per ‘case history on ITBA’. Assessee filed reply from time to time.
ITA 81/CHD/2024
A.Y. 2017-18
3
5 The ld. AO in his assessment order bearing No. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2019-20/1023369855(1) dated 29.12.2019 has in nutshell has observed as under : 1. Assessee had huge cash deposits in his bank account vis-a-vis 2015-16 and 2017-18 with major proportion deposited during demonetization period. 2. Though in the same business, the cash deposits/cash sales are not in proportion with the turnover of F.Y 2015-16. 3. Details of opening stock are questionable in the absence of stock register and as per the bills produced. 4. Except for the books maintained by the assessee himself; there is no other evidence of cash sales/cash withdrawn from capital. 5. Purchase/sales have not found to be verifiable as assessee failed to produce supporting documents like GRs/Freight receipts/Barrier receipts. Further, assessee failed to prove the identity of persons to whom cash sales made. 6. No cartage account maintained in ledger means no cartage paid on either sale/purchase. 7. No wages/salary is paid to anyone during F.Y 2016-17 means that no one to handle/manage stock and business affairs including sale etc.
6 That in the aforesaid impugned assessment order dated 29.12.2019 the ld. AO has computed total income of the assessee at Rs.1,37,61,000/- wherein addition of Rs.1,34,75,000/- is made as the said deposits were not satisfactorily explained. 2.7 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid assessment order prefers first appeal under ITA 81/CHD/2024 A.Y. 2017-18 4
Section 246A before ld. CIT(A) who by impugned order has dismissed the first appeal.
2.8 That the assessee being aggrieved by the impugned order has filed second appeal before us and raised following grounds against the impugned order which is reproduced below :
“1. That the Ld. A.O. wrongly made assessment u/ s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) against law and facts of the case.
2. That the Ld. A.O. erred in law and facts in ma king addition on account of cash deposited in t he current account which is reflected in the audited books of accounts, without rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145(3) of the Income Ta x Act, 1961. 3. That the Ld. AO. erred in law and facts in making addition Rs.
1,34,75,000/- u/s 69 A of the Ac t, 1961 on account of cash deposited in current bank account, without any base and reasons t hereof That the Ld. AO erred in law and fact s in passing order without giving proper opportunity of being heard in contravention to the principles of natural justice i.e. audialterampartem. That the Ld. AO erred in law and facts in making the addition on basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures.
That the assessment framed is arbitrary, prejudicial and without consideration of submissions filed.
4. That the Ld. A.O. erred in law and facts in initiating penalty proceeding u/s 271AAC of the A ct, without any base and reasons thereof.
5. That the Appellant craves, leave to vary, alter o r add any grounds of appeal
3. Record of Hearing
3.1 The hearing before this Tribunal took place on 08.01.2025 when ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared and interalia contended that the impugned order
ITA 81/CHD/2024
A.Y. 2017-18
5
is passed in violation of the principles of natural justice and is therefore, bad in law and illegal. Basis Paper Book placed on record, it is contended that notice dated
07.11.2023 from office of CIT(A) came on e-mail Id of old counsel which was DPGUPTAADVOCATE@GMAIL.COM
Page 14 of Paper Book and so also notice dated 06.10.2023
page 19 of Paper Book whereas updated email Id is taxwasan@gmail.com page 21 of Paper Book. Basis Paper
Book, it was contended that no notice came on updated email address which was taxwasan@gmail.com. Under these circumstances in impugned order, it is wrongly recorded that,
“During the course of appellate proceedings, various notices of hearing were issued to the appellant. No submission has been made by the appellant, hence the appeal is decided on the basis of material available on record.”. The ld. AR contended that impugned order being violative of principle of natural justice should be set aside and case be remanded back to CIT(A). The ld. DR interalia relied upon the impugned order.
ITA 81/CHD/2024
A.Y. 2017-18
6
Observations, findings and conclusions
1 In the premises set out hereinabove by us, we are of the considered view that ld. CIT(A) ought to have send notice of hearing at updated e-mail address which was taxwasan@gmail.com and ought not to have send it to old counsel’s e-mail Id as stated above. 4.2 In the circumstances aforesaid we set aside the impugned order and remand the case back to the file of CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on merits on denovo basis. The impugned order is passed in violation of principle of natural justice and prejudice is caused to assessee the grievance which he has rightly raised before us. 5. ORDER 5.1 In the circumstances aforesaid, impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand back to the file of CIT(A) on denovo basis.
ITA 81/CHD/2024
A.Y. 2017-18
7
2 The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 16.01.2025. (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( PARESH M. JOSHI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
JUDICIAL MEMBER
“Poonam”
आदेश क ितिलिप अ ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
अपीलाथ/ The Appellant 2. यथ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयु/ CIT 4. िवभागीय ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, चडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order,
सहायक पंजीकार/