SMT. GEETA TALWAR,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3270/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 June 2016AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) erred in not admitting the additional evidence. The matter was restored to the CIT(A) to allow the evidence and decide the appeal on merits.

What were the facts?

The assessee explained cash deposits in her savings account as being from prior withdrawals from the same account. The Assessing Officer (AO) did not accept this explanation and made an addition under Section 69A. The CIT(A) refused to admit additional evidence provided by the assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to admit additional evidence. The issue of the addition made by the AO under Section 69A was not adjudicated on merits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Wadhwa, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Deepak Garg, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.06.2016Pronounced: 23.06.2016

ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 29.4.2014 in relation to the assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The first effective ground of the appeal is against non-admission of additional evidence by the ld. CIT(A).

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee was asked to explain cash deposits of Rs.19.78 lac in her savings bank account.

The assessee furnished reply to the effect that the cash deposits were made out of the withdrawals from the same bank account on various dates. The AO did not accept the assessee’s contention, which led to the making of addition amounting to Rs.19,78,000/- u/s 69A of the Act.

The assessee tried to file certain additional evidence explaining her case before the ld. CIT(A), who refused to accept the same and upheld the assessment order.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material available on record. It is noticed that the assessee did explain to the AO that the cash deposits were made out of the withdrawals from the same bank account on various dates, which could not be properly backed by evidence. The assessee’s attempt to make good the deficiency left at the assessment stage, was foiled at the end of the ld. CIT(A), who refused to accept the additional evidence. In my considered opinion, the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order on this score is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of ld. CIT(A) with a direction to accept the additional evidence and, thereafter, decide the appeal on merits. Needless to say, the assessee will be allowed a reasonable opportunity of being heard in such proceedings.

5.

In view of my above decision on this preliminary ground, there is no need to adjudicate the other grounds on merits against the confirmation of addition.

6.

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

The order pronounced in the open court on 23.06.2016.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →