Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI
These cross appeals have been filed by the assessee as well as by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A)-XVII, New Delhi for AY 2007-08 in first appeal no. 149/CIT(A)-XVII/2009-10. Grounds raised by the assessee in read as follows :
1. That under the facts and circumstances and in view of documents and explanations filed, the source of deposit of Rs. 8,69,375/- in Punjab National Bank of the assessee needs to be accepted, consequentially the addition made and sustained deserves to be deleted in law as well as on merits.
2. That without prejudice, without allowing proper and reasonable opportunity of hearing, Asstt. Framed and appellate order passed in un-sustainable in law.”
Grounds raised by the Revenue in
The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,21,54,532/- accepting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee during the appellate proceedings contravening the provisions of Rule 46A of the Income Tax Act, 1962. 3 Preet Finlease, (P) Ltd., 2. The ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not appreciating the fact that the assessee was afforded ample opportunities to furnish the requisite details/ evidence s in respect of cash credits and the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove that whatever was being claimed by it, is true. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the assessee company denied to have the ‘bank account’ in question by filing an affidavit during the assessment proceeding and it was owned up by the assessee only after confronted with it.”
We have heard arguments of both the sides and carefully perused the materials placed on the record. The Ld. Assessee’s Representative (AR) contended the AO proved assessment order without allowing proper and resonable apportunity of being heard and only on this Court. The impugned assessment order is not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. AR also drawn our attention towards remand report of the AO submitted to CIT(A) and contended that the AO has not made any allegation in the remand report about the contentions and evidence of the assessee, thus, source of deposit of Rs. 8,69,375/- in Punjab National Bank of the assessee needs to be accepted and addition make in this regard may be deleted.
Replying to the above the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) vehemently contended that the CIT(A) has not given any finding on 4 Preet Finlease, (P) Ltd., the allegations and comments of the AO made in the remand report.
The Ld. DR, supporting the action of the AO and pressing in to service grounds no. 1 , 2 & 3 of the Revenue strenuously contended that the CIT(A) grossly erred in accepting the additional evidence furnished by the assessee during appellate proceedings contravening the provisions of Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962. The Ld. DR vehemently pointed out that the CIT(A) was not correct and not appreciating the fact that the assessee was afforded ample opportunities to furnish the requisite details and evidences in respect of the case credits and the assessee failed to discharge its onus to prove that whatever was claimed by it, was true. The ld. DR also contended that the CIT(A) also ignored this important fact that the assessee company denied to have the ‘Bank Account’ in question by filing an affidavit during the assessment proceedings and it was owned up by the assessee only after confronted with it. The Ld. DR lastly prayed that the department has no serious objection if the case is restored to AO to assessment stage. 5 Preet Finlease, (P) Ltd., 4. The ld. AR also placed rejoinder to the above submissions of ld.
DR and pointed out that even remand report of the AO submitted druing first appellate proceedings supports the case of the assessee.
However, he fairly accepted the assessee has no objection if case is restored to the file of the AO for afresh adjudication.
On careful consideration of above rival submissions and perusal of assessment order as well as order of the CIT(A), we clearly observe that assessee filed unaudited balance sheet at the Fegend of the assessment proceedings. All other relevant evidence was submitted under Rule 46 A of the Rules as an additional which was admitted and considered by the CIT(A) after calling remand report from the AO.
However, we are agree with the contention of the Ld. DR that the Remand report was not property considered by the first appellate authority as the CIT(A) has not given any findings about the comments and stand of the AO in the remand report. In these circumstances, we are inclined to accept submissions of the Ld. DR, which are also expressly accepted by the Ld. AR, that the case deserves to be restored to the file of the AO for afresh and denovo 6 Preet Finlease, (P) Ltd., reassessment after providing due opportunity of being heard to the assessee. We order accordingly.
In the result, appeal of the assessee as well as of the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order Pronounced in the Court on 01/07/2016.