Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “E”, NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI
Date of Hearing : Date of Hearing : 24-11111111-201 Date of Hearing : Date of Hearing : 201 2015 201 Date of Order : 24 Date of Order : 24-11111111-201 2015 Date of Order : Date of Order : 24 24 201 201 ORDER ORDER ORDER ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU PER H.S. SIDHU : : : : JM PER PER H.S. SIDHU H.S. SIDHU This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-II, Dehradun dated 21.1.2013 pertaining to assessment year 2009-10 on the following grounds:-
1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained credit in the bank account by accepting the plea of the assessee that he was not given reasonable opportuinty to produce the supporting documents during the course of assessment proceedings without calling for and examination of assessment record.
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, whether CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition without appreciation of circumstantial evidences supporting the AO’s thjeory that imprest account was concocted story.
Facts narrated by the Revenue Authorities are not disputed by both the parties, therefore, need not been repeated here for the sake of brevity.
This case earlier came up for hearing before the Bench on 12.1.2015 and 14.5.2015 and notices to this effect was issued to the assessee by Regd. Post AD, but neither the assessee nor its authorised representative appeared on these dates nor any application for adjournment was filed. Again in this case, Notice of hearing for today i.e. 24.11.2015 was sent to the assessee by the Registered AD Post, in spite of the same, again assessee, nor his authorized representative appeared to prosecute the matter in dispute, nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, we are of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the assessee, therefore, we are deciding the present appeal exparte qua assessee, after hearing the Ld. DR and perusing the records.
Ld. DR relied upon the order passed by the AO and stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order dated 21.1.2013 and deleted the addition in dispute, without passing a speaking order. He also draw our attention towards the impugned order para nos. 3.1 to 5 and stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed a non-speaking order on the issue in dispute, which needs to be set aside to the AO to decide the same afresh under the law, after hearing the parties.
We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the records especially the orders of the revenue authorities. We find cogency in the arguments of the Ld. DR that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is not a speaking one and the matter needs to be remitted to the file of the AO for fresh consideration. For the sake of convenience, we are reproducing the relevant para nos. 3.3 to 6.0 of the impugned order as under:-
“3.3 The entire gamut of facts have been considered. It is seen that the impugned transactions in the bank account are justified on the basis of entries in the imprest account. The Ld. AO’s assertion that this is a concocted story is not acceptable since these accounts were available always and had proper opportunity been given at the assessment stage, this controversy could have been resolved even then. Thus the transaction shown in the bank account are treated as justified and the addition of Rs. 11,40,870/- is hereby deleted. 4.0 The second ground challenges the addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- made on account of FDR from allegedly unexplained sources. The Ld. AR has averred that the FDRs were made from withdrawals made from the same saving bank account from which the addition as per ground number 1 has been challenged. 4.1 The facts have been considered. Since the allegedly unexplained transactions in the two bank accounts have been held to be explained. The amounts expended on FDRs are also held as explained. The addition of Rs. 3,00,000/- is also deleted. 5.0 The last two grounds have not been pressed and are thus dismissed. 6.0 In the result, the appeal is partly allowed.”
5.1 After going through the relevant paras of the impugned order as well as the order of the AO along with the evidence filed by the assessee, we are of the view that the issue requires thorough examination at the level of the AO. We also find from the impugned order that Ld.CIT(A) has not passed the speaking 3 order on the issue in dispute and has not discussed the issue in detail and deleted the addition in dispute on assumption and presumption basis. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are remitting back the issues in dispute raised by the Revenue to the file of the AO with the direction to decide the same afresh, under the law, after giving full opportunity to the parties.
In the result, the Appeal filed by the Revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24/11/2015.