Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA
O R D E R
PER R. K. PANDA, AM :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 23.03.2016 of CIT(A), Faridabad relating to assessment year 2011-12.
This appeal was earlier dismissed by the Tribunal for non-appearance. Subsequently, the Tribunal vide M.A. No.594/Del/2017 order dated 02.01.2018 recalled its earlier order. Hence this is recalled matter. 3. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, they all relate to the order of the ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.12,95,250/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash transaction, the source of which has not been explained. 4. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee had filed the original return of income on 24.11.2011 declaring total income of Rs.1,89,990/- and agricultural income of Rs.9,12,240/-. On the basis of survey conducted u/s 133A at the business premises of the assessee on 28.03.2012 during which certain materials/papers were impounded, the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 after recording the following reasons :-
“Reasons for re-opening the case u/s 148 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As per information obtained from the J&K Bank, Dwarka, New Delhi under section 133(6) of the Income tax Act. The assessee has constructed M/s Dalamwala Hotel & Banquet Hall, Jind and spent Rs.11373600/- upto 08.11.2010 on construction of the Hotel. The assessee filed return of income of Rs.189990/- + Agri. Income of Rs.912240/- but no such investment has been declared in the return of income. Loose paper No.94 impounded during the course of survey revealed that the assessee raised loan of Rs.15,00,000/- in cash on 30.04.2010 in violation of section 269SS of the Income Tax Act in which he failed to disclose in the return of income. Loose paper No.98 impounded during the course of survey revealed that the assessee raised loan of Rs.7,50,000/- in cash from his nephew Shri Pawan in violation of section 269SS on the Income Tax, Act and re paid Rs.2,00,000/- in cash in violation of section 269T of the Income Tax Act and paid interest of Rs.274000/- and failed to disclose the same in the return of income. I have therefore reason to believe that owing to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts in the return of income has income to the extent of Rs.1,13,73,600/- + Rs.15,00,000/- and Rs.7,50,000/- = Rs.1,36,23,600/- + Rs.7,50,000/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act.”
During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the statement of Shri Balwant Singh was recorded during survey on 28.03.2012 during which he had admitted that there was total investment of Rs.3,20,00,000/-. However, the District Valuation Officer in his report has estimated the total investment of Rs.3,97,48,433/- which has been spread over a period of 5 years from financial year 2007-08 to 2011-12. He, therefore, did not make any addition on account of this point. The Assessing Officer, however, on the basis of certain documents impounded during the course of survey made addition of Rs.12,95,250/- on account of unexplained cash transactions, the source of which according to him was not explained.
In appeal, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the Assessing Officer by observing as under :-
“6.3 I have considered the facts of the case together with the submissions of the appellant. In the written submissions received via e-mail, the appellant has not brought out any fresh facts, which have not been considered earlier by the AO in the assessment order. In fact whatever contentions have been made by the appellant have not been supported by any documentary evidence. For example, in the written submission, the appellant has stated that the copy of sale deed, bank pass book etc. have been annexed with the submissions, however, no such documents have been annexed. All the other submissions made by the appellant have been considered by the AO in Paras 4 to 7 of the assessment order. It is also evident that all the contentions of the appellant have been considered and rebutted by the AO during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, in view of these facts, I find no merits in the submissions of the appellant and I find no reason to interfere with the order of the AO. Thus, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed and the addition made by the AO is upheld.”
6.1 Aggrieved with such order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal challenging the above addition.
After hearing both the sides, I find the order of the ld. CIT(A) is very cryptic one and he has not passed a speaking order on this issue in the light of the submission made before him. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and 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 with documentary evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The assessee is also hereby directed to substantiate his case with evidences without seeking any adjournment. The grounds raised by the assessee are 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 26th July, 2018.