SH. MAHESH CHAND GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

Date of Hearing on : 05/10/2016 Order Pronounced on : 14/10/2016

ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 09.2.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-21, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2009-10 on the following grounds:-

1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred, both on facts and in law in upholding the additions made by the AO. 2. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the assessment order passed by the AO u/s 144 of the Act, which is against the principles of natural justice, as no adequate opportunity of being heard was allowed to the assessee be the AO. (ii) That the learned CIT(A) has upheld the order of the AO without considering fact that the non- appearance of the assessee before the AO was because of reasons beyond the-control of the assessee.

3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not giving his findings with regard to the submissions made by the assessee and issue involved in the appeal before him. 4. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the 'case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming the addition of Rs.22,52,450/- made by the AOon account of the cash deposits made by the assessee in its bank account during the year. (ii) That the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the above addition by arbitrarily rejecting the explanations and evidences brought on record by the assessee. 5. (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming the addition made by the AO despite the fact that the burden as contemplated under Section 68 of the Act about the nature and source of the deposit has been explained by the assessee,

(ii) Without prejudice to the above, the learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in disregarding the fact that addition made should be restricted to the amount of peak balance out of the alleged unexplained cash deposits made in the bank account.

6. At page no. 7 to 8 of the impugned order has observed that during the course of appellate proceedings the appellant has claimed that in response to notice u/s. 143(2) of the I.T. Act he handed over his case to the Chartered Accountant, who did not attend the proceedings which led to finalization of the assessment u/s. 144. Ld. CIT(A) also held that the claim made by the assessee is not supported by any evidence and as such he finds no infirmity in AO invoking provisions of section 144 of the Act and completed the assessment vide order dated 21.12.2011.

In view of the above, I am of the considered view that in the interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee to substantiate his claim before the AO. Accordingly, I remit back the issues in dispute to the file of the AO to consider the same afresh, under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. However, the assessee is also directed to produce all the evidences/ documents before the AO to substantiate his claim and fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings.