Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW
Before: SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA
Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kamal Deep Singh v. The ITO-1(4) C/o Sanjay Saxena Shahjahanpur 12, Pratap Enclave Bisrat, G.T. Road Shahjahanpur TAN/PAN:BIZPS6787C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Sanjay Saxena, C.A. Respondent by: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date of hearing: 13 11 2024 Date of pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 12.12.2023, passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2017-18.
The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual and is carrying on the business of trading of Solar Panels, etc., and is also engaged in medical profession. The assessee had filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 20.12.2017, declaring a total income of Rs.6,27,010/-. The case of the assessee was selected for complete scrutiny under CASS for the reason that the assessee had deposited cash in his bank accounts during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued statutory notices along with a questionnaire. The assessee participated in the proceedings before the AO and based on the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and after considering the material on record, the AO completed the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, computing the income of the assessee as under:
Income as per ROI : Rs.06,27,010.00 Unexplained money u/s.69 of the Act : Rs.35,40,500.00 Under-reported income from : Rs.01,12,157.00 undisclosed sales Total Income : Rs.42,79,667.00
Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by passing an order ex-parte qua the assessee.
Now, the Assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the action of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal:
1. The Id. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in adding Rs.28,92,500/- u/s 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is contrary to the facts and circumstances of the case.
2. The Id. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in applying the provision the provision of Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not applicable in the case of the appellant as its application is bad in law as per facts and circumstances of the case as the appellant had already shown these cash deposit as at his own.
3. The Id. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in applying provisions of Section 115BBE on the Income of Rs.28,92,500/- as per facts of the case.
4. The Id. CIT(Appeals) erred on facts and in law in charging interest u/s 234B of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
That the assessment order had been passed without considering all the facts and due proper opportunity being violation of principles of natural justice and is liable to be cancelled.
6. The appellant reserves a right to add/alter/amend any ground of appeal at the time of its hearing.
5. During the course of hearing before me, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee (Ld. A.R.) filed an application dated 13.11.2024, which was received by the Registry of this Office on 13.11.2024, under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 for admission of fresh evidence. The submission of the Ld. A.R. was that this is nothing else, but Reconciliation of Bank Statement, which could not be produced before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings. He prayed that if an opportunity is given, the same will be duly explained before the AO. For the sake of convenience, the reconciliation statement is reproduced hereunder:
The Ld. Sr. D.R. had no objection to the admission of the additional evidences.
Having gone through the additional evidences filed before me, I am of the view that these evidences go to the very root of the matter and are germane to proper determination/assessment in the case of the Assessee. Accordingly, I admit the same.
The Ld. Sr. D.R. had no objection to the restoration of appeal to the Office of the AO, as requested by the ld. A.R.
I have heard both the parties and have also perused the material on record. Looking into the facts of this case, I am of the considered view that the assessee deserves one more opportunity to present his case and, therefore, in the interest of substantial justice, I restore this file to the Office of the AO with the direction to provide one more opportunity to the assessee to present his case along with necessary evidences. I have already admitted the additional evidences filed by the Assessee in the form of Reconciliation of Bank Statement, under Rule 29 of the I.T.A.T. Rules. The Assessee shall produce them before the AO during the course of set aside proceedings. I also caution the assessee to fully comply with the directions of the AO in the set- aside proceedings when called upon to do so, failing which, the AO shall be at complete liberty to pass the order in accordance with law, based on the material available on record even if it is ex-parte qua the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 19/11/2024.