Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-II’ NEW DELHI
Before: SMT DIVA SINGH
ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 28.03.2016 of CIT(A), Meerut pertaining to 2009–10 assessment year in the quantum appeal on various grounds.
However, at the time of hearing, an adjournment petition was moved on behalf of the assessee stating that the quantum appeal may be adjourned as appeal against the penalty u/s 271(1)(c) sustained by the CIT(A) is also pending before the ITAT. Considering the fact that the quantum appeal can be decided without linking the same with the penalty appeal, the said request was rejected and it was considered appropriate to proceed with the present appeal ex-parte qua the assessee-appellant on merit after hearing the Ld. Sr. DR.
The relevant facts of the case are that on the basis of AIR information, the assessee was required to explain the deposits in his back account. As per the two-page assessment order, the assessee is found to have stated that he was an agriculturist and the cash deposits were made out of sale of his agricultural land of Rs.4 Lakhs and the remaining amount of Rs.37 Lakhs was explained as his accumulated agricultural income. The assessee was required to submit the bank account statement and copy of Sale Deed.
Considering the same the deposits of Rs.4. was accepted as explained. Documentary evidence in support of the accumulated agricultural income of Rs.37 Lakhs was sought
I.T.A .No.-2503/Del/2016 Pawan Kumar vs ITO
Page 2 of 2 since despite opportunity it was not filed. Addition of Rs.37 Lakhs as income under section 69A was made by the Assessing Officer by an order passed under section 144/147. 4. The assessee came in appeal before the First Appellate Authority and sought to file fresh evidence. The Assessing Officer objected to the admission of fresh evidence noting that ample opportunity was provided to the assessee. The objection was opposed by the assessee stating that the last notice is dated 24.02.2014 giving time to the assessee living in a remote area to file its reply by 27.02.2014 and passing the order on 28.02.2014. The information sought to be placed on record was stated to have been obtained by filing an RTI application to the bank and on 10/03/2016, the said information was placed before the CIT(A). However, considering the fact that the said evidence has not been filed by a petition under Rule 46A, the CIT(A) was of the view that evidence cannot be taken into consideration. Accordingly, after hearing the Ld. Sr.DR, the adjournment petition moved was rejected and it was considered appropriate to set aside the impugned order back to the file of the CIT(A) with the direction to admit the evidence which the assessee sought to rely upon and thereafter decide the issue in accordance with law. Needless to say that after admitting the fresh evidence which the assessee seeks to rely in its support is to be confronted to the Assessing Officer and after confronting the Remand Report to the assessee, is required to pass a speaking order in accordance with law.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 12th of January 2017.