GURMUKH SINGH SANDHU,VPO MANUKE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (OSD)-2, JAGRAON
आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DIVISION BENCH, ‘SMC’, CHANDIGARH
BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 496/CHD/2024
Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year : 2011-12
Gurmukh Singh Sandhu,
Near B. D. Public School,
VPO Manuke,
Tehsil Jagraon,
Ludhiana 142034
बनाम
The ITO (O 2),
Jagraon,
èथायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: BQRPS5927C
अपीलाथȸ/Appellant
Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent
( Virtual Hearing )
Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Ashwani Kumar, CA
राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, JCIT
सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing
:
11.11.2024
उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement
:
02.01.2025
आदेश/Order
The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 14.03.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi
[hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], for the Assessment Year 2011-
12. ITA No.496-Chd-2024
Gurmukh Signh Sandhu, Ludhiana
2
2. The Assessee is aggrieved by the action of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 31,89,350/- on account of unexplained cash deposits in the bank accounts of the Assessee. The Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings noted that the Assessee had deposited an amount of Rs. 31,89,350/- in his bank accounts (Rs. 25,75,000 with Bank of Baroda and Rs. 6,14,350/- in HDFC Bank). The Assessing Officer treated the aforesaid amount as unexplained income of the Assessee and made the impugned addition.
3. In appeal, the Assessee explained before the CIT(A) that the Assessee was an individual, agriculturist and his only other source of income was interest from saving bank account under the head
‘income from other sources’, besides agricultural income. It was also explained that the Assessee did not enjoy any income which was chargeable to tax as income was much below the taxable limit and as a result, there was no liability to pay advance tax by the Assessee. That the order passed by the Assessing Officer (A.O.) was an ex-parte order as the Assessee could not appear before the A.O. to offer his explanation. It was further pleaded that the Assessee is an illiterate person and did not know nitty-gritties of the tax proceedings.
ITA No.496-Chd-2024
Gurmukh Signh Sandhu, Ludhiana
3
5. However, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the Assessee was having a taxable income because of the bank deposits in his bank accounts and further observed that the Assessee had not deposited the advance tax payable by him. He, therefore, did not adjudicate the appeal on merits but dismissed the appeal of the Assessee as not admissible for non-deposit of advance tax.
5. After hearing the ld. DR, I am of the view that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in not admitting the appeal of the Assessee for adjudication. The Assessee in this case, from the very beginning has stated that he was an agriculturist and that his income was below taxable limit. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was supposed to consider the aforesaid submissions of the Assessee. Every deposit in the bank account cannot always be an income of the Assessee.
Therefore, the condition of deposit of advance tax could not be imposed blindly without considering the contention of the Assessee that his income was below the taxable limit. The Assessee, therefore, was required to be given a reasonable opportunity of hearing by the ld. CIT(A). Further, as noted above, the impugned assessment order is also an ex-parte assessment order. In my view, the interests of justice will be well served if, the Assessee is given an opportunity to present his case before the Assessing
Officer. Accordingly, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set
ITA No.496-Chd-2024
Gurmukh Signh Sandhu, Ludhiana
4
aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing
Officer for de novo assessment.
6. Needless to say that the Assessing Officer will give proper opportunity to the Assessee to present his case and to furnish necessary evidences and details. The Assessee is also directed to present his case before the Assessing Officer as and when called for and will not contribute in unnecessary delay.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on 02.01.2025. (SANJAY GARG)
Judicial Member
“आर.के.”
आदेशकȧĤǓतͧलͪपअĒेͪषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Appellant
2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent
3. आयकरआयुÈत/ CIT
4. ͪवभागीयĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकरअपीलȣयआͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT,
CHANDIGARH
5. गाड[फाईल/ Guard File
आदेशानुसार/ By order,
सहायकपंजीकार/