Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU
Date of Hearing : 03-11-2015 Date of Order : 03-11-2015 O R D E R These appeals by the Assessee are directed against the common order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi dated 31.3.2015 pertaining to assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. Since the issues involved in these appeal are common and identical, hence, I am passing this consolidated order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with (AY 2005-06).
The grounds of appeal read as under:-
1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in confirming the assessment order dt.28.03.2013 and upholding the additions made, for A.Y.2005-06 u/s 153A rw.s.143(3) of the Act, passed by Ld. AO for each of 7 Assessment Years from 2005-06 to 2011-12.
2. Without prejudice to the above, that on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, since no assessment was pending and no incriminating material was found, the provision of sec.153A of the Act is not applicable and the notice issued u/s 153A and the assessment order passed are without jurisdiction, void-ab-initio and not sustainable in law.
3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has grossly erred in law, not admitting the explanation and additional evidences furnished during the course of appellate proceedings and dismissing the appellants submissions summarily without giving any cogent reasons. 4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of RS.1,08,000/- being the aggregate amount of cash deposits in bank account with SBI, ignoring the explanation that these were on, account of advances for or reimbursements of travel expenses from employer company against which the expenses were incurred through credit card. 5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.58,515/- being the amount of investments in shares during the year ignoring the explanation and without giving any cogent reasons. 6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the addition of Rs.96,888/- being the aggregate amount of credits / deposits in the account with Bank of Rajasthan (BoR) during the year ignoring the facts that they were clearly indicated in the bank statements. 7. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in upholding the estimated addition of RS.2 lacs made in the Assessment Order on account of alleged drawings, ignoring the explanation and without giving any cogent reasons. 8. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by AO u/s 153(A) 1 143(3) is wrong 2 and bad in law. The Ld.AO has passed Assessment Orders for 7 years in a high ended manner making indiscriminate additions as alleged unexplained incomes or investments without exercise of sufficient and reasonable fair play and ignoring the principles of natural justice.
That tax demanded and interest charged u/s. 234B being consequential in nature are wrong.
The penalty proceedings initiated u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act are consequential and mechanical and are wrong.
The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.
The Appellant seeks leave to add, alter, amend, or abandon any of the above grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal.
The facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the Assessee stated that the assessee has raised almost 12 grounds of appeal, but during the hearing, mainly he is pressing the ground no. 3 in which he has stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has not admitted the explanation and additional evidences furnished during the course of appellate proceedings and dismissing the appellants submissions summarily without giving any cogent reasons. He further stated that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order without hearing the assessee and without giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. He draw my attention towards the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A) and stated that in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A), for fresh decision, under the law, after giving full opportunity to the assessee of being heard.
5. On the contrary, Ld. CIT(DR), Shri Ravi Jain relied upon the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A).
I have heard both the parties and perused the records, especially the order of the Ld. CIT(A) who has passed the consolidated order for the assessment years 2005-06 to 2011-12. I have seen that Ld. CIT(A) has reproduced the contention raised by the Assessee in the grounds of appeals for the assessment years in dispute and after that in para no. 4.2 of his impugned order has stated that the assessee has raised some issues first time before the Appellate proceedings i.e. after thought. Finally the addition made by the AO has been upheld by the ld. CIT(A). After going through the impugned order, I am of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order contrary to the principle of natural justice and without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. I am also of the view that the assessee can raise any issue and file any evidence for substantiating his/her claim before the ld. CIT(A) which cannot be rejected in a summarily manner which has been rejected by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order. I have also perused the assessment order which also contrary to the principle of natural justice in which no adequate opportunity was provided to the assessee. Therefore, in my considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) has upheld the assessment order contrary to the law and facts on the file, specially against the principle of natural justice, which is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Hence, in the interest of justice, I remit the issues in dispute to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration, after giving full opportunity to the assessee and also consider the evidences/documents, if any, to be produced by the Assessee to substantiating his/her claim and decide the Appeals, as per law by passing a speaking order.
In the result, all the 7 appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.