IQBAL AHMAD THROUGH L/R ASIF ,MEERUT vs ITO, WARD- 1(3), MEERUT

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Adv

For Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Assessee by : Shri Vinod Kumar Goel, Adv. Department by : Shri S. L. Anuragi, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 17-07-2018 Date of pronouncement : 24-07-2018 O R D E R

PER R. K. PANDA, AM :

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30.10.2017 of CIT(A), Meerut relating to assessment year 2010-11.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. On the basis of information received from ADIT (Inv.)-I, Meerut, that substantial amount has been deposited in the Savings Bank Account of the assessee, the Assessing Officer reopened the case by issue of notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 after recording reasons. Since the assessee could not explain the source of various deposits, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.20,91,000/- as “income from other sources” and added the same to the total income of the assessee. The Assessing Officer in the assessment order also made addition of Rs.10,19,341/- on account of “long term capital gain”.

3. The assessee challenged the above two additions. Apart from the above, the assessee also challenged the validity of the reassessment proceedings before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) rejected the ground relating to reassessment proceedings. However, it appears from the appellate order that he has not decided the addition on merit.

4. Aggrieved with such order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :-

“1. That the A.O. as well as CIT(A) is in error that notice U/s 147 and 143(2) was served upon the assessee, when he was out of India during the period of initiation of proceeding to assessment proceeding. Therefore, assessment made by A.O. without serving notice U/s 147 and 143(2) is bad in law.

2. That the CIT(A) has not disposed off the ground no.2 properly, because the assessee has challenge the addition of Rs.20,91,000/- and Rs.10,91,341/-.

That the assessee has sold property on Power of Attorney basis, however he was not owner of the property. Therefore, capital gain assessed by A.O. and partly allowed by CIT(A) is bad in law.

That the assessee has right to add, delete or modify any grounds during the appeal proceedings.”

After hearing both the sides, I find although the assessee has taken specific ground challenging the addition on account of unexplained deposit in the bank account and the long term capital gain, however, ld. CIT(A) has not decided the issue on merit. It is apparent from the order of ld. CIT(A) that the assessee had made elaborate submission challenging the two additions made by the Assessing Officer in the order passed u/s 143(3)/147 of the I.T. Act.

Considering the totality of the facts of the case, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the ground raised before him on merit. Since the issue is being restored to the file of the ld. CIT(A) to decide the additions on merit, therefore, I refrain myself from deciding the legal ground taken before me challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings. The appeal filed by the assessee is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on this 24th July, 2018.

IQBAL AHMAD THROUGH L/R ASIF ,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), MEERUT