MR. MOHD.IMROSEIQBAL,DELHI vs. ITO, WARD 63(2), DELHI
I.T.A.No.3513/Del/2023
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.3513/Del/2023
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2017-18
Mr. Mohd. ImroseIqbal
6518, Bara Hindu Rao,
New Delhi.
बनाम
Vs.
ITO,
Ward 63(2), Civic Centre,
Minto Road, New Delhi.
PAN No.AAHPI9921K
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent
िनधारतीक ओरसे /Assessee by Shri Harshit, Adv.
राजवक ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Sandip Kumar Mishra, Sr. DR
सुनवाईक तारीख/ Date of hearing:
27.12.2024
उोषणाक तारीख/Pronouncement on 03.01.2025
आदेश /O R D E R
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi dated 19.10.2023 for the AY 2017-18
in sustaining the addition made u/s 69A of the Act.
2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee, at the outset, submits that Ld.
CIT(Appeals)-NFAC decided the appeal without giving proper opportunity and without considering the submissions and evidences furnished by the assessee. Ld. Counsel for the assessee referring to page 6 of the CIT(Appeals) order, wherein, a tabulation was made giving date of issue of notice and compliance by Assessee, was given
I.T.A.No.3513/Del/2023
by the Ld.CIT(A). Ld. Counsel referring to the date of issue of notice to the assessee, dated 16.10.2023 submitted that the Assessee was asked to comply to the notice on 20.10.2023. However, the Ld.CIT(A) passed the order on 19.10.2023 even before the date of compliance i.e. 20.10.2023. 3. Ld. Counsel further submits that though the Ld. CIT(A) stated that the reply filed by the assessee has been considered, as a matter of fact the Ld. CIT(A) did not consider the material evidence filed before him which is running into 108 pages which was also furnished before the Tribunal. Ld. Counsel further submits that addition of Rs.35,34,500/- was made representing cash deposits from sales made by the assessee as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act even though such sales are recorded in the books of account and are from the business of trading and Automobile Tyres. Ld.
Counsel, therefore, prayed that an opportunity be given to the assessee to explain the cash deposits with evidences and requested that the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication.
4. Ld. DR supported the orders of the authorities below.
I.T.A.No.3513/Del/2023
Heard rival contentions, perused the orders of the authorities below. From the orders of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), it is observed that the compliance for the notice dated 16.10.2023 for submission of details was fixed on 20.10.2023, however, the order was passed on 19.10.2023 even before the date of compliance. Reading of the Ld.CIT(Appeals) order apparently shows that none of the evidences furnished by the assessee have been considered or referred to. Therefore, taking the totality of facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that this matter should go back to the Assessing Officer for denovo consideration of evidences furnished by the assessee. Thus, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) is set aside and the addition in appeal is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication and in accordance with law after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/01/2025 (C.N. PRASAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 03.01.2025 *Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.
I.T.A.No.3513/Del/2023
Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT
(DR)/Guard file of ITAT.
By order