What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO and CIT(A) failed to address the correct facts and the assessee's submissions regarding the joint bank account and the source of deposits. The matter was set aside to the AO for a fresh assessment.

The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's income based on bank deposits, using an incorrect PAN. The assessee claimed the deposits were from his savings as a truck owner/driver and his wife's earnings from stitching, deposited in a joint account.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO and CIT(A) erred in making additions without properly considering the assessee's explanation and the correct PAN, and whether the evidence regarding the joint bank account was adequately addressed.

Mohd. Khurshid Salmani, Meerut vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SMT DIVA SINGH

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Goel, Adv

Hearing: 03.07.2018Pronounced: 11.07.2018

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 21.9.2017 of CIT(A) Meerut pertaining to 2009-10 assessment year on the following grounds :-

“That A.O. is in error that PAN of the assessee is relates to Mohd. Khurshid Salmani in fact PAN of the assessee is AVWPK7726L hence order possessed by A.O. is invalid.

2. That A.O. ignored that fact in the bank account was joint name alongwith his wife, who is separately assessed to tax and A.O. ignored the fact that the sufficient withdrawal is made by the assessee. However, the A.O. has considered cash deposit only which is arbitrary, unjust and illegal and CIT(A) has not given any finding. 3. That the evidence filed by the assessee related to the joint bank account is available to the assessee other was supported to the joint bank A/c. CIT(A) can himself refer these evidence to the A.O. hence CIT(A) has not justified rejected the evidence filed by the assessee.”

Both the parties have been heard. The record shows that the A.O. required the assessee to explain the deposit of Rs. 11,65,000/- in his bank account. The AO referred the assessee's PAN as DANPS2288N. The assessee initially objected to the incorrect PAN and gave some explanation for the deposits. Ultimately the assessment order was passed u/s 144 by the AO making the additions of the amounts deposited. The assessee before the CIT(A) submitted that the assessee’s PAN is AVWPK7726L and the deposits were explained from his saving as a truck owner/driver and the contributions made by his wife Talak from stitching etc. in the joint bank account. However the request was ITA-7006/Del/2017 Page 2 of 2 dismissed by CIT(A) though the correct PAN was taken. The CIT(A) held that the evidence had not been filed u/s 46A.

The ld. AR pleading his helplessness submitted that the AO refused to even correct the PAN and the CIT(A) failed to address the submissions that the evidence being relied upon was the very same evidence which was pleaded before the AO. Thus, it was not a fresh evidence, it had always been made available to the A.O. who without addressing the correct PAN or facts passed a cryptic order. Accordingly, it was his limited prayer that the matter may be remanded for considering the record. The Sr.DR did not dispute the same.

Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case I am of the opinion that in the interests of justice, it would be appropriate to set aside the impugned order back to the file of the A.O. with a direction to pass a speaking order in accordance with law directing the said authority to first address the correct facts wherein it is stated that the assessee and her husband have both been assessed to tax over the years from similar activity and have been showing earnings from identical activities of truck driver/owner and stitching etc. respectively over the years. The correct PAN of the assessee is also directed to be taken on record. Said order was pronounced at the time of hearing itself.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 11th July,2018.

MOHD. KHURSHID SALMANI,MEERUT vs. ITO, WARD- 1(4), MEERUT

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments