SMT. PINKY GOEL,HALDWANI vs. ITO, HALDWANI

“That on facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the authorities below erred in denying exemption claimed by the appellant u/s 10(38) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in making addition amounting to Rs.1,04,67,196/- as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act. The action being most arbitrary, erroneous, unjustified and illegal must be quashed.” (B). In this case, assessment order dated 31.12.2007 was passed u/s 143(3) of I.T.Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) wherein addition of Rs.1,04,67,196/- was made u/s 69A of the Act on account of bogus sale of shares. Vide order dated 19.11.2008, Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the addition. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal in ITAT. At the time of I.T.A .No.-285/Del/2009 Smt. Pinky Goel, vs ITO

Aggrieved by this the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The main contention of the assessee before the CIT(A) was that various evidence such as communication of the broker with the DDIT (Inv.) Kolkata was not furnished to the assessee or confronted of any material in A.O’s possession to the assessee at any point of time during assessment proceedings. The assessee’s further ground before the CIT(A) was that the assessee was given copies of some documents received from Calcutta Stock Exchange and DDIT (Inv.) Kolkata on 27/12/2007 while show cause notice was issued one day prior i.e. 26/12/2007. Thus, assessee was given only a day’s time for reply and compliance to complete the formality of confrontation of evidence to be used in assessment proceedings which was against the principles of natural justice. The assessee also submitted before the CIT(A) that the assessee was not given any opportunity as such about the material which was submitted before the Assessing Officer by the DDIT (Inv.) Calcutta. The CIT(A) vide dismissing the appeal of the assessee has also not given any detailed reasoning in respect of the said documents.

The Ld. AR submitted that since the evidence which was before the Assessing Officer was not confronted to the assessee and no opportunity was given to the assessee for pleading his case before the Assessing Officer, it will be appropriate to remand the matter before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer be directed to take cognizance of all the materials placed before the DDIT ((Inv.) Calcutta and the Calcutta Stock Exchange documents by giving proper hearing to the assessee before the Assessing Officer . The Ld. DR agreed the submissions made by the Ld. AR.

We have heard both the sides. It is pertinent to note that the Assessing Officer as well as the CIT(A) has not given any findings in respect of the documents received by the Assessing Officer from DDIT (Inv.) Calcutta and Calcutta Stock Exchange. No ample opportunity was granted to the assessee before the Assessing Officer. Hence, in the interest of justice it is appropriate to remand this matter before the Assessing Officer by taking cognizance of all the documents and giving opportunity of hearing to the assessee for confronting the said documents and pleading her case before the Assessing Officer.” (C). In view of the foregoing facts and circumstances; and the position brought to our attention by the two sides; and respectfully following the order of the Co-ordinate Bench of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Smt. I.T.A .No.-285/Del/2009 Smt. Pinky Goel vs ITO