INDERJEET SINGH,NOIDA vs. ITO, WARD- 1(5), NOIDA

Following grounds have been raised in this appeal: “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the following actions of the Assessing Officer: 1) in making addition of Rs.20,00,000/- thereafter on account of alleged unexplained deposit cash in Bank; 2) in rejecting the additional evidence submitted in terms of Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and not providing due and adequate opportunity of explaining the same. Both the actions being arbitrary, misconceived, erroneous and unjust must be quashed with directions for relief.”

The main grievance of the assessee vide ground no. 2 relates to the rejection of additional evidence in terms of Rules 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 and that due and reasonable opportunity was not provided by the ld. CIT(A).

The facts of the case in brief are that the AO on the basis of information received from Annual Information Report (AIR) came to know that that the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.20,00.000/- in the Canara Bank. He, therefore, issued a notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Since the assessee did not comply, the AO made the addition of Rs.20,00,000/- by passing the ex-parte order u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Act.

Being aggrieved the assessee carried the matter to the ld. CIT(A) and requested for grant of leave under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 to file the fresh evidences which were not before the AO. The ld. CIT(A) forwarded the said additional material to the AO for necessary consideration and to give report. The AO rejected the evidences of the assessee which were related to the source of cash deposited in the bank account and recommended that the case may be decided on merit. Copy of the remand report was provided by the ld. CIT(A) to the assessee for his necessary response. The assessee, on 18.09.2017 submitted through a letter that it was in the process of collecting of various documents which were claimed to be critical for deciding the issue

Inderjeet Singh and sought adjournment. However, the ld. CIT(A) did not accept the request of the assessee and confirmed the action of the AO.

Now the assessee is in appeal. The ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO passed the assessment order ex- parte without providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard and that the ld. CIT(A) also without considering this request of the assessee for adjournment on the ground that certain documents which were critical to decide the issue were to be furnished, confirmed the addition in haste without giving due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. He requested to set aside the issue to the file of the AO to be decided after considering the documents of the assessee which are directly related to the deposit in the bank.

In his rival submissions, the ld. Sr. DR submitted that due and reasonable opportunity of being heard was provided to the assessee. Therefore, the ld. CIT(A) was fully justified in confirming the action of the AO.

I have considered the submissions of both the parties and carefully gone through the material available on the record. In the present case, it is noticed that the AO framed the assessment ex- parte u/s 144 of the Act. Thereafter, the assessee before the ld. CIT(A) furnished certain documents which were not accepted by the AO. The ld. CIT(A) sought the remand report from the AO. Thereafter, the assessee sought time to furnish certain documents which were critical to decide the issue of depositing the cash in his

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 06/06/2018)