Loading judgment…
Facts
Two assessees filed appeals against separate orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Year 2019-2020. A search operation on 07.02.2019 revealed cash, but the assessees failed to produce reconciliation statements or details of cash accumulation to the lower authorities. The CIT-Departmental Representative sought an adjournment, citing administrative reasons and a potential conflict of interest, but the Tribunal rejected the request.
Held
The Tribunal observed that both assessees were unable to produce necessary evidence for cash reconciliation before the authorities below. In the interest of justice, the Tribunal restored the issues in both appeals to the Assessing Officer for readjudication, granting the assessees a fresh opportunity to be heard and to furnish all relevant documents, including the reconciliation statement of cash found.
Key Issues
Inability to reconcile cash found during a search operation; whether to grant a further opportunity to assessees to produce evidence for cash reconciliation.
Sections Cited
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RANCHI BENCH, RANCHI
Before: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JM & SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, AM
O R D E R Per Bench : These two appeals are filed by the two different assessees against the separate orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), Patna-3, both dated 17.02.2023 for the assessment year 2019-2020. 2. At the outset, the ld. CIT-DR sought adjournment in these cases on the following grounds :-
The number of cases posted during the week is nearly 250, out of the same, on daily basis, nearly in 72 to 75% of the cases, adjournments are being sought. As the Bench was constituted and the same was also intimated much in advance and the adjournment has been sought in the last minute, therefore, the adjournment applications are being rejected.
It may also be worthwhile to mention here that another reason given by the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative for adjournment is that in some of the appeals, orders have been passed by the office of the impugned CIT- DR personally. Here, it is to be mentioned that in respect of the orders of the ld. CIT(A), which have been challenged by the revenue, it can be said that it would be difficult for the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative to defend such orders, in so far as he would be arguing against his own orders. But in such cases, where the orders have been passed against the assessee and the assessee is in appeal, we find no reason as to why the ld. CIT-DR would not be able to defend his own orders. In any case orders have been issued against the assessee. When this was put to the ld. CIT- DR, it was a submission that should the Tribunal pass an order reversing the order of ld. CIT(A), he could be questioned under administrative provisions. This does not stand to be a reason, in so far as the appeal provisions have been provided by the statute. It is human to err. If there is no order passed by the Assessing Officer, then obviously post of CIT(A) is required and if there is no order of ld. CIT(A), there is no requirement of the Tribunal so on and so forth. Various stages of appeals are provided so that necessary proceedings are available for both the assessee and the revenue to defend their stands. Decisions taken by the appellate authority as a judicial or quasi judicial forums, are not subject to administrative reviews. Appeal provisions are provided by the statute. It would also be worthwhile to mention here that repeatedly the courts have been holding that the ld. CIT(A) are quasi judicial authorities and no administrative pressure can be put on them to decide any issues in any specific manner. We are of the view that such apprehension of the ld. CIT-DR is unfounded. Consequently, the submission of the ld. CIT-Departmental Representative was that he is recusing from the arguments. His plea is accepted. The matters are disposed off on merits on the basis of records and documents available before the Tribunal.
As the facts in both the cases are interconnected, therefore, both the appeals of the assessee are disposed off by this common order after considering the submissions of the ld. AR and the facts and circumstances of the case.
It was submitted by the ld.AR that both the assesses in their respective appeals were unable to produce the reconciliation of the cash found in the course of search. It was the submission that the search was taken place in the assessee’s group on 07.02.2019. The ld. AR drew our attention to para 5 at page 6 of the order of the ld. CIT(A) wherein the ld. CIT(A) has mentioned that the assessee was failed to produce any details of the cash accumulation upto the date of search and failed to file any reconciliation statement of the cash found. It was the submission that both the assessees would be able to produce all such documents along with reconciliation statement of cash found if one more opportunity is provided to represent their cases before the AO.
We have considered the submissions of ld. AR and perused the orders of the authorities below. A perusal of impugned orders in the case of both the assesses shows that both the assesses were unable to produce the evidence before either of the authorities below. This being so, in the interest of justice, the issues in both the appeals are required to be restored to the file of ld. AO for readjudication afresh after granting the assessee adequate opportunity of being heard and we do so.
In the result, both appeals of the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 06/10/2025.