SH. SUBHASH RASTOGI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5623/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 August 2016AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee was not granted a reasonable opportunity to be heard due to illness. Therefore, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was restored to the AO for fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 7,67,000/- representing cash deposited in the assessee's bank account. The assessee claimed he was not given adequate opportunity during assessment due to illness and a rejected adjournment request.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was denied a reasonable opportunity of being heard during the assessment proceedings due to illness and rejection of adjournment.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 131

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar Gupta, CA
For Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR
Hearing: 11.08.2016Pronounced: 11.08.2016

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 16.7.2014 in relation to the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the sustenance of disallowance of Rs.7,67,000/-, being the amount of cash deposited in bank.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the AO found the assessee to have deposited cash in his bank account on different dates totaling to Rs.7,67,000/-. In the absence of any convincing explanation given by the assessee, the AO made addition for this sum, which addition came to be upheld in the first appeal. The assessee is aggrieved against such addition.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. AR submitted that the assessee was not allowed adequate opportunity at the assessment stage inasmuch as despite his illness, duly substantiated by medical certificate, the AO rejected his prayer for adjournment. I find that the relevant discussion on this issue in para 2 on page 2 of the assessment order, in which it has been mentioned that summons u/s 131 were issued to the assessee for his personal deposition on 18.2.2013 but the assessee did not appear because of the viral fever and was advised rest by the doctor for 15 days.

Medical certificate was also enclosed and request was made for granting adjournment. The AO did not grant any adjournment and made the addition. Taking into consideration the entirety of facts and circumstances obtaining in this case, I am of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of AO. I order accordingly and direct the AO to frame the assessment afresh as per law, after allowing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

The order pronounced in the open court on 11.08.2016.

More judgments on Section 131

All 4,706 judgments and leading authorities on Section 131 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →