WAHABUDDIN,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1643/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 December 2019AY 2011-126 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal restored the issue to the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication. This was based on a co-ordinate bench's decision in the assessee's own case, allowing the assessee an opportunity to substantiate their case.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made additions to the assessee's income based on unexplained cash deposits in the bank account. The assessee failed to respond to the AO's queries, leading to an assessment under section 144 and penalty under section 271(1)(c). The CIT(A) upheld these actions.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of unexplained cash deposits and the penalty levied were justified without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain. The issue of whether the quantum addition should be restored to the AO for fresh consideration.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘C’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, & MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Adv
For Respondent: Shri S.N. Meena, Sr. DR
Hearing: 04.12.2019Pronounced: 06.12.2019

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA Nos. 1642/DEL/2016
ITA Nos. 1643/DEL/2016

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER,

1.

The above two separate appeals by the assessee are preferred against two separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals] - Meerut dated 14.01.2016 and 15.01.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2011-12. Since both these appeals were heard together, these are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noticed some cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee was asked to explain the sources of the cash deposits in the bank account with ICICI Bank. As no one responded to the queries raised by the Assessing Officer, the Assessing Officer framed assessment order u/s 144 of the Act and levied penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act.

5.

The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) on both the counts i.e. addition made and penalty levied, but could not succeed.

6.

Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee drew our attention to the decision of the co-ordinate bench in assessee’s own case in and pointed out that the co-ordinate bench has restored the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer to be decided afresh.

7.

Per contra, the ld. DR strongly supported the findings of the Assessing Officer.

8.

We have given thoughtful consideration to the orders of the authorities below. We find force in the contentions of the ld. counsel for the assessee. On identical set of facts and on identical grounds of appeal, the co-ordinate bench in vide order dated 26.07.2018 has held as under:

“6. After hearing both the sides, I find due to non-appearance by the assessee, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144/148 by estimating the income of the assessee being the cash deposited in the bank account maintained with ICICI Bank, since the assessee did not explain the source of such deposit. I find the ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on the ground that there was no proper application under the Rule 46 for admission of the additional evidences and the assessee could not explain as to why there was non-compliance before the Assessing Officer despite several opportunities granted. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and considering the undertaking given by the ld. counsel for the assessee that given an opportunity the assessee shall appear before the Assessing Officer to substantiate his case to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer, therefore, in the interest of justice I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the Assessing Officer with a direction to give one more opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case and decide the issue as per fact and law. The grounds raised by the assessee are accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.”

9.

In respect of penalty levied u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, the co- ordinate bench in has held as under:

“After considering the written synopsis filed alongwith copy of the order of the Tribunal in and after hearing the Ld. DR I find the quantum appeal has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for deciding the issue afresh. Since, quantum addition has been restored to the file of the Assessing Officer, therefore, I deem it proper to restore the issue relating to levy of ft penalty to the file of the Assessing Officer to decide the issue afresh and in accordance with law after giving due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. I hold and direct accordingly. The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purpose.”

10.

On finding parity in the facts vis a vis the grievance of the assessee for the year under consideration, respectfully following the findings of the co-ordinate bench, we direct accordingly.

11.

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in & 1642/DEL/2016 are allowed for statistical purposes.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 06.12.2019.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →