SH. RAM AVATAR BANSAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

This appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 18.5.2015 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2011-12 on the following grounds:-

“1. That the assessment order passed by learned CIT (A) is illegal, bad in law and not maintainable or the fact and circumstance of the case.

2. That the assesses has explained source of funds of Rs.

38,57,500/- in the first appearance which belongs to my mother as first applicant in joint SB A/C with UCO bank of Kirti Nagar, New Delhi-ll0015 regarding cash deposited in various dates.

sufficient opportunity to the assesses. No registered notice was served to the assesses while making addition of Rs.

38,31,000/- on account of cash deposit after providing written submission as on 20/12/2013.

18,94,000/-- was received from Smt. Sheela Jain as part payment as advance against property out of Rs. 30,94,000/-- and Rs. 19,37,000/- was advance against another property from Sh. O.P. Sangwan as part payment of Rs.42,00,000/-. The Ld. Assessee officer wrote confirmatory letter to the concerned buyers who replied accordingly.

Subsequently the undersigned has repaid the same to the buyers for buying peace of mind and avoid litigation.

points at the time of hearing.”

3. At the time of hearing, the Assesse himself admitted and stated that the AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the evidences filed by the assessee. He draw my attention towards the order passed by the AO as well impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) alongwith the Paper Book filed by him containing pages 1 to 50 and he has also certified that all the documents were filed before the ITO/CIT(A) during the proceedings of the case. He also draw my attention towards the copy of the agreement to sell between the Assessee and Smt. Sheela Jain and Sh. O.P. Sangwan. He also draw my attention towards the photocopy of ITR Smt. Sheela Jain as well as Sh. O.P. Sangwan for establishing the creditworthiness of the creditors. The assessee stated that both the creditors have also filed their confirmations regarding crediting the amount as well as its supporting evidence for returning back the money by the assessee. He further stated that these documentary evidences have not been appreciated by the authorities below and, therefore, he requested that addition in dispute may be deleted.

4. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that assessee was given sufficient opportunity for substantiating his claim, but he could not avail the same. Therefore, the order of the authorities below especially the impugned order may be upheld.

5. I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the orders passed by the revenue authorities alongwith the documentary evidences filed by the assessee in the shape of paper book containing pages 1 to 50 in which assessee has attached the written submission, copy of agreement to sell between RA Bansal and Smt. Sheela Jain; Copy of agreement to sell between RA Bansal and Sh. Om Prakash Sangawa; copy of ITR of Smt. Sheela Jain and its bank statement with PNB Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi – 85; photocopy of ITR of Sh. OP Sangwan and its bank statements with ICICI Bank, Rajender Nagar, and Allahabad, Rajender Nagar, Delhi and his withdrawals account in his firm M/s Mahan Fire Protection Baddi (HP); photocopies of letter written by ITO, Ward 37(1) to the buyers and their replies submitted by them in Dak Counter of Department; copy of two affidavits as submitted before the CIT(A)-XX, Delhi of Smt.

Sheela Jain and Sh. OP Sangwan regarding repayment of advance taken against properties; copy of bank statement of Sh. RA Bansal HDFC Bank, RA Bansal HUF ICICI Bank, and his firm KD sons with ICICI Bank and IMG Vysya Bank Ltd.; copy of ITR of RA Bansal HUF Prop. M/s KD Sons for AY 2011-12 and phgotocopy of Special Power of Attorney of Sh. RA Bansal R/o C-2/23, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi – 34. Assessee has also certified that all the aforesaid documents were filed before the ITO/CIT(A) during the proceedings before them. I have also perused the agreement to sell executed between the assessee and Smt. Sheela Jain and Sh. O.P. Sangawan and supporting evidences establishing the creditworthiness of the creditors. I find that the assessee has attached the documentary evidence which is after the passing of the assessment order which was not filed before the AO and also the AO has no opportunity to cross examine the same. For example, the Affidavit from both the parties/creditors regarding repayment on advance received against property. I have also perused the ownership proof of properties in the case of Ram Avtar Bansal R/o C-2/23, West Enclave, Pitampura, Delhi – 34 filed vide letter dated 8.12.2016 before the Bench i.e. Telephone Bill of C-2/23, West Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi -34; electricity Bill of C-2/23, West Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi -34; Water Bill of C-2/23, West Enclave, Pitampura, New Delhi -34; Registration Certificate under Shop Establishment of Act, 1954 of 1135/11, Naiwala Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 5; Statement of affairs as on 31.3.2011 of M/s RA Bansal & Co.; Copy of GPA of house C-2/23, West Enclave, Pitampura, for RA Bansal.; Telephone bill of property bearing no. 1135/11, Naiwala Karol Bagh, New Delhi – 5 which also needs to be considered by the AO. Therefore, in my considered view, the matter requires re-examination at the level of the AO, hence, in the interest of justice, the issue in dispute is set aside to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, after considering all the aforesaid documents and after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 02/02/2017.