SMT. JASBIR KAUR BHALLA,GURGAON vs. ITO, GURGAON

PDF · subscribers
ITA 616/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 January 2016AY 2009-104 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s order and restored the matter to the AO. The assessee is permitted to file fresh evidence before the AO for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared a low income, and the case was selected for scrutiny. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 54,42,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits as the assessee did not appear. The CIT(A) confirmed the addition, refusing to admit additional evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in refusing to admit additional evidence filed by the assessee and confirming the addition of unexplained cash credits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA & SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI

For Respondent: Shri Raman Kant Garg, Sr. DR
Hearing: 07.01.2016Pronounced: 07.01.2016

ORDER PER BEENA A. PILLAI, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) 24 on 28.11.2013 in relation to the assessment years 2009-10.

2.

The issue raised in this appeal is against the addition of Rs.,54,42,000/- on account of unexplained cash credits by the assessee which remain unsubstantiated by the assessee.

3.

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that assessee had filed its return of income on 31.07.2009, declaring an income of Rs. 2,15,700/-, for the year under consideration. The case was selected for scrutiny and notices were issued to the assessee. However the assesee appeared only once and thereafter did not appear before the ld.Ao and so the assessment order was passed by making an addition of Rs. 54,42,000/- 3.2. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.Ao the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld,CIT(A). The assessee filed certain documents in respect of the cash deposits. The same was remanded to the ld.AO.

In upholding the addition, the ld. CIT(A) refused to admit/entertain additional evidence filed by the assessee under Rule 46A in support of his contention. On the basis of the remand report the ld CIT(A) confirmed addition of Rs. 54,42,000/-.

4.

Aggrieved against the sustenance of addition to the above extent, the assessee is in appeal before us.

4.1. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. It is observed that the assessee admittedly made cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee. When the assessee tried to furnish additional evidence before the ld. CIT(A), he refused to admit such additional evidence on the ground that the AO gave enough opportunities to the assessee.

4.2. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances in the instant case and without commenting upon the merits of the additional evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the ends of justice would meet adequately if the impugned order is set aside pro tanto and the matter is restored to the file of AO. We order accordingly and direct the AO to examine the assessee’s contention in this regard and, then, decide the issue afresh. Needless to say, the assessee will be at liberty to file fresh evidence before the AO in support of his contention in such fresh proceedings.

5.

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

The order pronounced in the open court on 07.01.2016.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →