COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX vs. ORISSA CRICKET ASSOCIATION

[2024:RJ-JP:36252-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 55/2018 Smt. Leela Devi Bumb, 117, Shital Mata Market, Kumhar Mohalla, Bijainagar. ----Appellant Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Beawar. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak with Mr. Aditya Bohra Ms. Ishita Rawat Mr. Kanishk Singhal Ms. Priyanshi Roongta For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anurag Mathur for Mr. Shantanu Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR Judgment AVNEESH JHINGAN, J

29/08/2024 1. This appeal is filed aggrieved of order dated 08.12.2017 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dismissing the appeal. 2. The brief facts are that during Assessment Year 2012-13, the appellant was engaged in commodity exchange transactions. The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs.56,30,000/- for an unexplained cash deposit made in the bank account of the appellant. The appellant failed in the first appeal and before the Tribunal. Hence, the present appeal. 3. The appeal was admitted on 04.04.2022 on following substantial questions of law:- “Whether learned Income Tax

Appellate Tribunal was justified in law

[2024:RJ-JP:36252-DB] (2 of 3) [ITA-55/2018] in not assigning any reason for not taking on record the additional documentary evidence which was filed by the appellant before the CIT (Appeal) but not taken into consideration by the First Appellate Authority.” 4. The only issue raised by counsel for the appellant is that a copy of computation, balance sheet; list of parties suffered losses/gains during the relevant year; affidavit of the assessee, affidavit of the clients with bills and receipts of payments along with the statements of the parties were submitted before the AO/CIT(A) but this was not noticed and considered by the Tribunal. 5. The reliance is placed upon Annexure-3 i.e. Index of the Paper Book filed before the Tribunal, which carries a stamp of the Tribunal and last line states that the documents were furnished before the AO/CIT(A) during the assessment proceedings. The argument is that the documents produced were explaining the cash deposit of Rs.56,30,000/-. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugned order. Submission is that the relevant documents for explaining the additions were never produced either before the Assessing Officer or before the Appellate Authority. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings. 8. It would be appropriate to note that during course of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant produced the copy of the paper book, which contains original copies of the affidavits. This aspect needs to be gone into that if these affidavits were filed

[2024:RJ-JP:36252-DB] (3 of 3) [ITA-55/2018] before the Assessing Officers, how the originals are with the counsel. Be that as it may from the orders of CIT(A) as also the Tribunal, it is not forthcoming that the documents claimed to have been produced before the Assessing Officer and Appellate Authority, were taken into consideration while deciding the appeal. The CIT(A) dismised appeal holding that no documentary evidence was adduced by the appellant for explaining the cash deposit and to the similar effect are the finding of the Tribunal. Consequently, order of the Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the matter is remitted back to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with law after considering the documents claimed before the AO/CIT(A). 9. It is clarified that this Court is neither commenting upon as to whether these documents were produced before the Assessing Officer or the Appellate Authority, nor the ramifications for non- filing of the original affidavits before the Assessing Officer, if so required. 10. Substantial question is answered in favour of the appellant and the appeal is accordingly allowed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Riya/Sunita/118 Whether Reportable: Yes