Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA
Per Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member:
The present appeal has been preferred by the Revenue against
the order dated 26.08.2016 of the Commissioner of Income Tax
[hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)], Patiala.
The Department is aggrieved against the action of the CIT(A)
in deleting the addition made by the Assessing officer on account of
unexplained bank deposits found in the account of the assessee. A
perusal of the impugned order of the CIT(A) reveals that the assessee
during appellate proceedings before CIT(A) had filed the application
under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 and sought to
produce additional evidences, such as copy of the agreement to sell
ITA No.1088/Chd/2016- Sh. Iaqbal Singh, Tehsil Samana 2
and copy of the registered sale deed etc. to prove that the bank
deposits of the assessee were out of the sale proceeds of agricultural
land sold by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) admitted the aforesaid
additional evidences and called for the remand report from the
Assessing officer in this respect. After considering the remand report
of the Assessing officer, the Ld. CIT(A) gave a categorical finding
that the additional evidences have not been controverted by the
Assessing officer rather the Assessing officer verified the
genuineness of the same and found the same as correct.
The Ld. CIT(A), on the basis of the remand report of the
Assessing officer held that the assessee had been able to prove the
source of the deposits made in the bank account of the assessee. He,
therefore, deleted the additions so made by the Assessing officer.
None has come present on behalf of the assessee. Before us,
the Ld. DR has submitted that the assessee, in fact, did not
cooperate in the assessment proceedings and that the Assessing
officer had to frame the assessment on the basis of best judgment as
provided u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act').
May it be so, but, the assessee had appeared before the CIT(A) and
explained about the source of deposits. The Ld. CIT(A) after
considering the submissions of the assessee as well as the remand
report of the Assessing officer has deleted the additions. We
therefore, do not find any infirmity in the order of the CIT(A) and
the same is upheld.
There is no merit in the appeal of the Revenue and the same is
accordingly dismissed.
ITA No.1088/Chd/2016- Sh. Iaqbal Singh, Tehsil Samana 3
Before parting with the order, we must point out about the regular practice of the Department by filing unnecessary appeals. When all the documents have been verified by the Assessing officer and the contention of the assessee had been found to be correct, we are unable to understand how the Department still remained aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), who had just given his decision on the basis of the remand report of the Assessing officer. We, therefore, recommend that the Department should make proper exercise before filing the appeal before the higher authorities so that the frivolous and meritless appeals can be avoided. Order pronounced in the Open Court
Sd/- Sd/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 18.04.2018 Rkk
Copy to: • The Appellant • The Respondent • The CIT • The CIT(A) • The DR