HARISH BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 36(4), DELHI, NEW DELHI

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law, in ignoring the fact that most of the loan amount are not received during the relevant Assessment Year and the addition made under Section 68 of the Act is unjust, illegal and bad in law and without juri iction. The CIT(A) has also erred in fact and in law in sustaining the same. 4. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law, in taking recourse to Section 68 of the Act without appreciating that none of the ingredients necessary for invocation of the said provision were satisfied. The nature and source of the alleged unsecured loan taken during the relevant Assessment Year were duly explained and the same being genuine is patently evident from the entries in the books of accounts and evidences filed by the Appellant herein. 5. That the provision of Section 115BBE of the Act has been illegally and wrongly applied by the AO and the CIT(A) has also erred in upholding the same. 6. That in the view of facts and circumstances of the case, the additions made is based on surmises and conjectures, without bringing enough evidence on record. The additions made are illegal, bad in law and highly excessive. The CIT(A) too has erred in confirming the same.

That in the view of facts and circumstances of the case, the documents, explanations filed by the Appellant and the material available on record have not been properly considered and judicially interpreted by both the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) and the same has been wrongly ignored.

That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) has erred on facts and in law in making/upholding the addition without giving adequate and reasonable opportunity of being heard and to enable the appellant to file further evidences in support of his case. 9. That without prejudice, overlapping additions have been made which amount to double addition and not allowing the set off of the additions/disallowances. 10. That material collected and statements recorded at the back of the Appellant and used by the Assessing Officer to make the additions, is not confronted to the Appellant and as such the addition made are illegal and bad in law. 11. That in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer has erred on facts and in law, in charging interest under Section 234A/234B/234C/234D of the Act. The interest has been also wrongly worked out. All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and are mutually exclusive to each other.

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on 30.10.2017 at income of Rs.8,21,830/-. The case was taken up for scrutiny and notice u/s. 143(2) dated 16.8.2018 was issued and served on the assessee. Thereafter, notices u/s. 142(1) was issued on from time to time calling for certain information. In response to the notices issued, the assessee filed submissions which were considered but not found convincing to the AO. The AO, therefore, concluded the assessment u/s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 30.12.2019 and an income of Rs. 40,08,969/- was assessed as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Act. 3. Upon assessee’s appeal, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee by confirming the addition made by the AO. 4. Against the aforesaid order, Assessee is in appeal before me. 5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. At the time of hearing Ld. Counsel for the assessee pleaded that authorities below have added the entire closing balance under section u/s. 68 of the Act. He further sought to file the following additional evidences. That by way of the present application, in support of the grounds of appeal raised by the Appellant before the Hon’ble Tribunal, the Appellant intends to file additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 (Rules).

By referring the aforesaid additional evidences, Ld. AR submitted that these may be admitted. Ld. DR did not have any serious objection to this proposition. 7. I have carefully considered the submissions and perused the records. I find that the additional evidences submitted by the Ld. Counsel for the assesee needs to be admitted and accordingly, the same are admitted and the matter is remanded back to the file of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer shall consider the issues afresh after taking into account the additional evidences being submitted by the Ld. AR and given adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Both parties fairly agreed to our aforesaid view. 8. In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.