Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च�ीगढ़ �ायपीठ “ए” , च�ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: HYBRID MODE �ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा�� एवं �ी िव�म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद� BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Surinder Kaur The ITO बनाम New Haveli Kalan Road, Near Govt. Ward-2(2), Ropar College, Rupnagar, Punjab-140001 �ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAVPK4488M अपीलाथ�/Appellant ��थ�/Respondent िनधा�रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Parikshit Aggarwal, C.A राज� की ओर से/ Revenue by : Dr. Ranjit Kuar, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 07/10/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 14/10/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. :
This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dt. 28/12/2023 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18.
In the present appeal, Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:
1. “That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. CIT(A), Chandigarh-1/10469/2019-20 has erred in passing order u/s 250 dt. 28/12/2024 as the same is in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “Act”).
2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 3,88,470/- made by Ld. AO by erroneously invoking the provisions of S. 40A(3). 3. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 11,75,342/- made by Ld. AO u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE of the Act on account of alleged unexplained investment.
4. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,74,452/- made by Ld. AO on account of alleged unsubstantiated expenses on vehicle(car).
5. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 3,15,200/- made by Ld. AO u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE of the Income Tax Act on account of alleged incorrect addition to capital account.
6. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 88,400/- made by Ld. AO on account alleged unsubstantiated donation claimed. 7. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 3,33,294/- made by Ld. AO by making ad- hoc disallowance of expenses. 8. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred in confirming addition of Rs. 2,95,758/- made by the Ld. AO on account of difference in cash deposited during demonetization on record with department and cash deposited as per cash book submitted for that period. 9. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the order passed by Ld. AO and thereafter confirmed by the Worthy CIT(A) deserves to be quashed since the same have been passed without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 10. That the appellant craves leave for any addition, deletion or amendment in the grounds of appeal
on or before the disposal of the same.”
3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income declaring total income of Rs. 7,46,720/- which was selected for complete scrutiny and thereafter, after issuance of notice under section 143(2) and calling for the necessary information, documentation, the assessment proceedings were completed wherein the assessed income was determined at Rs. 36,17,636/- by making addition of Rs. 28,70,916/-.
Being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). During the course of appellate proceedings, prayer for admission of additional evidences was submitted before the ld CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) after calling for the Remand Report from the AO as well as the rejoinder so filed by the assessee, admitted the additional evidences, however has sustained the addition so made by the AO. Against the said findings and direction of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us.
During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR contended that inspite of admission of the additional evidences and calling for the Remand Report from the AO, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to record any specific findings regarding the additional evidences so submitted by the assessee. It was submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has merely referred to the findings of the AO in the Remand Report without recording his independent findings.
In this regard, our reference was drawn to the addition made by the AO as well as the evidences which were submitted and duly admitted by the ld CIT(A) and the findings recorded thereafter by the ld CIT(A). Regarding addition of Rs. 3,88,470/- under section 40A(3), it was submitted that all these payments were made to different persons although one entry has been passed in the books of account. In this regard, bills and vouchers were submitted as part of the additional evidences and from perusal thereof, it can be noted that all the payments have been made less than Rs. 20,000/- to each person hence there is no violation of Section 40A(3) of the Act. It was submitted that both the AO in the remand proceedings as well as the Ld. CIT(A) have failed to appreciate the additional evidence so filed by the assessee.
Regarding addition of Rs. 2,95,758/- on account of cash deposited during the demonetization period, it was submitted that the cash deposited during the demonetization period amounting to Rs. 1,38,69,960/- includes the figure of cash deposited of Rs. 2,95,220/- which was deposited on 08/11/2016. In this regard, statement of account reflecting the cash deposited from 08/11/2016 to 30/12/2016 was duly furnished by way of additional evidence alongwith bank deposit slips as well as cash book which were again not taking into consideration while sustaining the addition by the Ld. CIT(A).
Regarding addition of Rs. 11,75,342/- towards purchase of car and Rs. 2,74,452/- regarding car expenses, it was submitted that the assessee has taken loan of Rs. 10,00,000/- from Punjab Gramin Bank, Ropar, and loan statement was already furnished before the AO and the same has been duly reflected in the books of account. In this regard, certificate from Punjab Gramin Bank stating that the payment has been made for purchase of car and ledger of the assessee in books of the car dealer, M/s Lally Motors Limited were submitted as additional evidences which were admitted but not been appreciated and considered while sustaining the addition towards unexplained investment in purchase of car and related car expenses.
Regarding addition of Rs. 3,15,200/- on account of addition in capital account, it was submitted that certain payments were made out of the personal bank account of the assessee and the same were again submitted by way of additional evidence which were not appreciated. Regarding donation of Rs. 88,400/-, it was submitted that the documentary evidence were submitted which were not again considered. Regarding the adhoc disallowance of 10% of 33,32,945/-, it was submitted that all these additions have been made on adhoc basis and the assessee has submitted all the bills and vouchers except home delivery charges and vehicle rent charges as additional evidence which were admitted but again not considered. It was accordingly submitted that the basis these additional evidences, there is no basis for addition so made by the AO and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A).
It was fairly submitted that since there is no findings recorded by the Ld. CIT(A), the matter may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to consider the additional evidences and record his specific findings after providing necessary opportunity to the assessee.
The Ld. DR is heard who has not raised any specific objection where the matter is set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival contentions and perused the material available on the record. Considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and the limited prayer for setting aside the impugned order to the file of the ld CIT(A) for deciding the same on merits which has not been objected to by the Revenue, we deem it appropriate to set aside the matter to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh as per law and record his specific findings taking into consider the additional evidences already brought on record and after providing reasonable opportunity to the assessee.