ITO, PATIALA vs. SH. IQBAL SINGH, SAMANA

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1088/CHANDI/2016Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 April 2018AY 2009-103 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The CIT(A) admitted the additional evidence, obtained a remand report from the AO, and found that the AO verified the genuineness of the documents. Based on this, the CIT(A) concluded that the assessee proved the source of deposits and deleted the addition.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition for unexplained bank deposits. The assessee, during appellate proceedings before the CIT(A), submitted additional evidence like an agreement to sell and sale deed to prove the deposits were from agricultural land sale proceeds.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was justified in admitting additional evidence and deleting the addition for unexplained bank deposits based on the AO's verified remand report.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, ‘A’ CHANDIGARH

Before: SHRI SANJAY GARG & Ms. ANNAPURNA GUPTA

Hearing: 18.04.2018Pronounced: 18.04.2018

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.

2.

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.

4.

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

5.

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →