SHRI DINESH GAUR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

68. The CIT(A) was also unjustified in sustaining the addition even without considering and examining the detailed explanation of the assessee in the regard regarding the source of deposit. (2) Upholding the addition of Rs.16,47,500/- even without rejecting the explanation and source of the deposit and also without finding the same as false. (3) Sustaining the addition of Rs.1,25,000/- even without finding the explanation of the assessee as untrue. (4) Sustaining the addition of Rs.3,07,000/- on account of loan from Komal Gaur even though admitting that the money had come from Komal Gaur and who was separately assessed to tax in her own personal capacity. (5) Sustaining the various additions as above without giving the reasons and basis and also without any reasons to hold that the explanation of the assessee has not been found to be satisfactorily whereas such adhoc rejection of the explanation is not permissible under the law. (6) Holding that the assessee has not earned any income from tution without any reason basis and evidence and also without finding the explanation of the assessee is false and also without finding the same as incorrect.”

The assessee is an individual and his income consists of salary from M/s Menz, tuition income, commission and agricultural and other sources. He filed his return of income on 27.1.2010. The Assessing Officer passed order u/s 143(3) of the Act on 7.12.2010 determining the total income at Rs.25,82,976/- inter alia making an addition u/s 68 of the Act. Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal. The First Appellate Authority partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Further aggrieved the assessee is in appeal before us.

After hearing rival contentions, I am of the considered opinion that the Assessing Officer has not properly considered the submissions made by the assessee. At page 9 and 10 of the assessee’s paper book, Cash flow statement for the period 1.4.08 to 31.3.09 has been filed. This Cash Flow Statement should have been examined by the A.O. Hence in my view the principles of natural justice have been violated in this case.

In view of the above, I deem it fit and proper to set aside the issue to the file of the A.O. for fresh adjudication in accordance with law.

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.