SH. SUKSHAM KUMAR,MEERUT vs. ITO, MEERUT

This appeal is preferred by assessee against the order of CIT (A), Meerut dated 28.03.2014, where the CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee since on the date of hearing fixed before him on 28.03.2014, the assessee filed an adjournment application which was rejected by the CIT (A) and the appeal was decided on that date itself without granting further adjournment to the assessee. The CIT (A) has decided the appeal without making any discussion on the merits of the case. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal. Del 2014 Sukhsam Kumar V ITO AY 2009-10

The brief facts of the case are that an addition of Rs.16,18,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee as he failed to give proper explanation regarding this amount deposited in the saving bank account of the assessee with Bank of India. The assessee before the Assessing Officer appeared personally and submitted copy of sale deed and the copy of purchase deed of property in the name of his mother about the probable source of the amount deposited in the bank account. In absence of any satisfactory explanation, the AO made addition u/s. 69 of the IT Act. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the AO filed an appeal before the CIT (A). However, none appeared before the CIT (A), but an adjournment was sought on four occasions. Therefore, the CIT (A) dismissed the appeal holding that since the appellant has not furnished any details and evidences against the addition made by the AO in the assessment order, he held that the AO was justified in making addition. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us.

Despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before us.The ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not submitted any details except the sale deed and purchase deed of property and therefore, the addition was rightly made.

We have carefully considered the rival contentions and are of the opinion that there is some reference or relevance of the sale deed and purchase deed copies of the property submitted by the assessee on 29.11.2011 before the Assessing Officer and if they are not relevant, for what reasons the Assessing Officer has accepted them and making reference to them in the assessment order. Further, the details of bank account in which the amount of Rs.16,18,000/- has been deposited by the assessee, copy of which was submitted by the assessee on 25.11.2011 is also not scrutinized by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, in absence of proper analysis of the bank account of the assessee about on which dates the amounts are deposited andits co-relation between the sale deed and purchase deed of the property submitted by assessee belonging to his mother, we are of the view that theAO is required to examine them before making any addition u/s. 69 of theAct. The assessee is also appearing himself before the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the AO is also duty bound to guide the assessee on this particular issue. It is also not the case of the Revenue that the assessee himself has not remained present before the AO. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issue is set aside to the file of AO to properly examine cash deposit of Rs.16,18,000/- with the sale deed and purchase deed submitted by the assessee in the name of his mother and to establish or reject the relevance thereof and then decide the issue afresh. Needless to say that a proper opportunity of hearing may be granted to the assessee and on any possibleadverse view, a show cause notice to the assessee may be served before deciding the issue.