PANKAJ SHARMA,DELHI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 30(8), NEW DELHI

3. Because the Assessing Officer on the basis of the information received opted to make additions observing that the money received by the Appellant during the demonetization period have been deposited as cash in the bank which are not accountable and have been treated as unexplained investment in bank by way of deposits. That the Appellant having produced necessary details of receipts and corresponding payments as expe3nditure, itself satisfies that the only resultant income emerging out of such contracted operation of tour at best can be subjected to tax and not the amount deposited in the bank is to be treated as unexplained investment.

4. Because the Assessing Officer failed to appreciate that the Appellant have received in cash from the schools from wehich

Appellant had arranged the Tours which includes boarding, lodging, transportation and other incidental expenditure of the Students and the Staff of the School, therefore, it is wrong to suggest that an addition of Rs.42,80,000 deposited in the bank relates to any unexplained money with the Appellant as well as the unexplained source when both of them were placed before the Assessing Officer who failed to appreciate and satisfy himself. Such action is incorrect and addition deserved to be set aside.

5. Because the Assessing Officer opted to make addition on account of the deduction claimed under Section 80GG for the reasons recorded that the Appellant has failed to produce the necessary evidence by way of lease deed/rent paid corresponding to the restricted claim of Rs.60,000 per year. The claim has not been denied because of any expenditure claimed against income being assessed under Section 69A but only for the reason of non production of evidences, therefore, the addition deserves to be set aside.

6. Because the Assessing Officer opted to make addition of Rs.1,28,000/- on account of deduction claimed under Section 80C of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 for the reasons recorded that the Appellant has produced an illegible copy of claim of deduction as proof. The claim has not been denied because of any expenditure claimed against income being assessed under Section 69A but only for the reasons of production of illegible copy of claim, therefore, the addition deserves to be set aside.

7. Because the orders passed by the ld. Assessing Officer and the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) are bad in law against the facts of the case. The Appellant crave liberty to add, amend and alter any of the grounds prior to or at the time of hearing of appeal.”

2. At the outset, the learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appeal of the assessee was disposed of ex parte by the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) without providing reasonable opportunity of being heard. Learned counsel further submits that the appeal was disposed of by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for non-compliance of the assessee and without adjudicating the issues on merits. The learned counsel for the assessee submits that the appeal may be restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for disposing of the grounds on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Commissioner (Appeals) provided three opportunities to the assessee to substantiate his claims in the appeal filed before him. However, it appears that the assessee did not present his case before the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals) and he disposed of the appeal for non-compliance of the assessee and without adjudicating the grounds on merits. In the circumstances, this appeal is restored to the file of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudicating the grounds on merits after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.