HARENDRA MALIK,MUZAFFARNAGAR vs. ITO, WARD- 1(2), MUZAFFARNAGAR

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 26.3.2018 passed by Ld. CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar for Assessment Year 2009-10.

2. The grounds raised in the appeal read as under:-

4. The addition/ disallowances made by the assessing officer are illegal, unjust, highly excessive and are. not based on any material on record by the assessing officer. The total income of the appellant has been wrongly and illegally computed by the assessing officer at Rs.19,51,500.00 as against declared income of Rs.1,66,270.00. The CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition to Rs.17,26,500.00, which is highly arbitrary and unjustified.

5. That, the assessing officer has failed to appreciate, that, the source of CASH deposit has been explained, that, the amount has been withdrawal time to time from same bank accounts and Agriculture Income, which is under dispute, hence, the addition made by the assessing officer and upheld by the CIT (A) is purely based on presumption and surmises and conjecture without appreciating the facts of the case.

6. That the Assessing Officer/CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case erred on facts and in law in making the ad-hoc addition disallowance on estimated basis, which is unjust, arbitrary, unlawful, highly excessive, based on surmises and conjectures and cannot be justified by any material on record.

8. That the explanation given evidence produced, material placed and available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/ allowances made.

10.That the interest U/s 234A & 234B has been wrongly and illegally charged as the appellant could not have foreseen the disallowances/additions made and could not have included the same in current income for payment of Advance tax. The interest charged under various sections is also wrongly worked out.

All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and are mutually exclusive to each other.

3. The brief facts of the case are that in the assessment order passed u/s. 144/147/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) dated 04.11.2016, the AO has made the addition of Rs. 19,51,500/- on account of unexplained cash deposit in the bank account. Against the assessment order, the Assessee appealed before the Ld. CIT(A), who vide his impugned order dated 26.03.2018 has dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

144 are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. It was further stated that in view of the facts and circumstances, no satisfaction is recorded by the Assessing Officer as required uls 147/148 of the Act prior issuing the notice under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was the further contention that no satisfaction has been recorded by the Assessing Officer after application of mind on the basis of tangible material, which have live nexus to the income, which have escaped assessment and merely relied on the information received from AIR, which is vague, incorrect and baseless, hence, the proceedings initiated is illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

He further submitted that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in upholding the validity of the proceedings initiated U/s 147 of the Act read with section 148 of the Act.

The addition/ disallowances made by the Assessing Officer are illegal, unjust, highly excessive and are not based on any material on record by the assessing officer. The total income of the assessee has been wrongly and illegally computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs.19,51,500.00 as against declared income of Rs.1,66,270.00. It was further submitted that Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the addition to Rs.17,26,500.00, which is highly arbitrary and unjustified. He further submitted that the AO has failed to appreciate, that, the source of CASH deposit has been explained, that, the amount has been withdrawal from time to time from same bank accounts and Agriculture Income, which is under dispute, hence, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and upheld by the CIT (A) is purely based on presumption and surmises and conjecture without appreciating the facts of the case. The Assessing Officer/CIT(A), in view of the facts and circumstances of the case erred on facts and in law in making the ad-hoc addition disallowance on estimated basis, which is unjust, arbitrary, unlawful, highly excessive, based on surmises and conjectures and cannot be justified by any material on record. The additions confirmed and the observations made by CIT (A) are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjunctures. The additions made cannot be justified by any material on record. That the explanation given evidence produced, material placed and available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/ allowances made. It was further submitted that the impugned Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer and order passed by Ld. CIT(A) are against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard.

7. I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the orders of the revenue authorities. I find considerable cogency in the contention of the assessee’s counsel that the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Ld. CIT(A) are against the principles of natural justice and the same has been passed without affording reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard. In view of above, I am of the considered view that the matter needs fresh adjudication at the level of the Ld. CIT(A), hence, I set aside the issues to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), with the directions to decide the same afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.