NEERU BANSAL,NOIDA vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 20.08.2015 of CIT(A)-21, New Delhi pertaining to 2011–12 assessment year on the following grounds:-

1. “Whether the Ld.CIT(A) was justified by upholding the finding of A.O. in Assessment order dated 06.02.2014 passed u/s 143(3) on the Addition of Rs.21,01,862/- u/s 68 of the Act without appreciating the submission as well as supported by the Paper Book.

2. Whether the Ld.CIT (A) was justified by upholding the finding of A.O. in Assessment order dated 06.02.2014 passed u/s 143(3) on the Addition of Rs.1,23,970/- on account of difference in salary as per 26AS. 3. Whether the Ld.CIT (A) was justified by not considering or say anything towards Application under Rule 46A(l)(a)/(d) and Additional evidence placed . The appellant craves leave to amend, alter or to raise any other ground at the time of hearing.” 2. The relevant facts of the case are that the assessee declared an income of Rs.15,95,230/- which was selected for scrutiny and in response to the notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(2)/142(1), Sh. Deshratan Marwah and Sh. Ramesh Sharma, Advocate appeared but only sought adjournments and did not make any compliances. As a result of this in the absence of any effective representation, the assessment was concluded by way of additions under challenge at an income of Rs.38,50,756/-. The issue travelled in appeal before the CIT(A) which resulted in partial relief, however the major additions stood confirmed. Aggrieved by this, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT.

The Ld.AR inviting attention to the impugned order submitted that before the CIT(A), fresh I.T.A .No.-5964/Del/2015 Neeru Bansal vs ITO

Page 2 of 3 evidences were sought to be filed. Admission of the same was supported on the grounds of the following prayer:-

(i) Fresh Evidence Under Rule 46A “Additional evidence which we could not be produce before Ld.AO. Because the assessee was not in a position to produce all the information which she was supposed to produce before the Ld.A.O. Because at the time of assessment proceedings assessee was under mental pressure by the reason that his brother Nipul Bansal was under the custody on allegation of withdrawal of a forged cheque.” (emphasis provided) 2.1. The said submission is found recorded at page 18 of the impugned order. It was also submitted that the assessee being an unmarried lady was dependent upon her brother who himself was in custody on some false claim/case of a forged cheque etc. thus the facts could not be properly placed on behalf of the assessee. The Ld. AR in the said background submitted that the evidence relied upon has not been taken into consideration by the CIT(A) before passing the order. Accordingly it was his limited prayer that the impugned order be set aside and the opportunity to place the relevant facts and evidences before the said authority may be provided. The said prayer was not seriously objected to by the Ld. Sr.DR. Considering the argument of the Ld.AR that the assessee at the relevant point of time was an unmarried lady fully dependent upon her brother and living alongwith her old mother and thus was unable to engage a counsel on her behalf to explain and support the claim made in the return. The brother who would have been entrusted with the responsibility was himself in custody in a false case. Accordingly, considering the overall factual matrix and the submissions of the parties before the Bench, the impugned order is set aside and the issues are restored back to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to admit the evidences in support of the claim of the assessee and after obtaining a Remand Report etc from the Assessing Officer pass a speaking order in accordance with law. Needless to say that the assessee shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity of being heard and the Remand Report shall be confronted to the assessee. While so doing, it is hoped that the opportunity so provided in good faith is not abused by the assessee as in the eventuality,

I.T.A .No.-5964/Del/2015 Neeru Bansal vs ITO

Page 3 of 3 full and proper compliances are not made before the CIT(A), the said authority it is made clear would be at liberty to pass a speaking order in accordance with law on the basis of material available on record. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 05th of January, 2017.