Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10 ITO, Ward-(3), Vs. Sh. Subash Chander Saggi, B-52, 3rd Floor, Pathankot. Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi. (Appellant) [PAN: APTPS9171C] (Respondent)
C.O. No.03/Asr/2019 (In I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Subash ChanderSaggi, B- Vs. ITO, Ward-6 (3), 52, 3rd Floor, Lajpat Nagar-2, Pathankot. New Delhi. [PAN: APTPS9171C] (Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. Nos. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 Assessment Years: 2011-12 to 2012-13 Sh. Subash Chander Saggi, B- Vs. ITO, Ward-6 (3), 52, 3rd Floor, Lajpat Nagar-2, Pathankot. New Delhi. [PAN: APTPS9171C] (Appellant) (Respondent)
I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 & C.O. 03/Asr/2019 & ITA No. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 2
Appellant by Sh. Vinamar Gupta, CA. Respondent by Ms. Kanchan Garg, Sr.DR
Date of Hearing 18.10.2022 Date of Pronouncement 11.11.2022
ORDER Per: Bench:
The instant appeals are filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of
Income Tax(Appeals)-2, Amritsar, [in brevity the CIT(A)],the order passed u/s
250(6) of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2012-
13.The impugned orders wereemanated from the order of the ld. Income Tax
Officer,Ward 6(3), Pathankot(in brevity the AO) order passed u/s 147/144of the
Act, all the orders are passed dated27.03.2015. The assessee filed cross objection
for the assessment year 2010-11 which is in delay of 670 days. The assessee filed
an affidavit for condonation of delay. The assessee was ill health and not received
the memo of appeal of the Department. After receiving the same the Cross
objection was filed before the Bench. The assessee prayed for condonation of delay
of 670 days. After a detailed discussion, with the consent of the ld. Sr. DR, the
delay was condoned. In factual back drop the three appeals are in the same issue
I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 & C.O. 03/Asr/2019 & ITA No. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 3
and Cross objection was filed by the assessee against the ITA No.313/Asr/2017 for
A.Y. 2009-10. At the outset, considering the common factual position of all the
cases, here the ITA 313/Asr/2017 and C.O. 03/Asr/2019 for A.Y. 2009-10 are
taken as the lead cases. The assessee has filed the revised ground which is
reproduced as below:
“1. The Ld CIT A has erred by not quashing the assessment inspite the fact that assessment has been framed without issuing notice u/s 143(2) against the return filed on 26-03-2015 declaring total income of Rs. 142700/- on account of business income.
That Learned CIT A has erred by not holding that the reopening u/s 148 is bad in law inspite the fact that reopening on the basis of inadequate satisfaction mentioning only "Yes" by the sanctioning authority in approval dated 7-3-14.
That Learned CIT A has erred by not holding that the reopening u/s 148 is bad in law inspite the fact that no reason to Deb that income has escaped assessment has been substantiated by issuing letter u/s 133(6) with the approval of
I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 & C.O. 03/Asr/2019 & ITA No. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 4
commissioner and reopening merely on the basis of AIR information.
That Learned CIT A has erred by not holding that the reopening u/s 148 is bad in law inspite the fact that sanction sought for from Addl CIT has been granted by Commissioner OSD.
The Ld CIT A has erred by not quashing the assessment in entirety wrongly framed u/s 69 and treating the regular deposits and withdrawals which are from regular business transactions in sale purchase of vehicles as unexplained investment. 6. The assessee craves leave to and permission of Hon'bie Bench of ITAT to add to or alter any of the grounds of memorandum of objections any time up to final decision of the appeal. 7. The assessee craves leave and sanction of Hon'ble Bench of ITAT to file additional evidence, if so required for proper prosecution of the case, based on facts and circumstances, which has not been or could not be adduced before lower authorities either because proper and sufficient opportunity
I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 & C.O. 03/Asr/2019 & ITA No. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 5
was not provided or because it was not solicited or Its ne-was not appreciated.”
ITA No. 313/Asr/2017 the revenue has filed the groundswhich are
reproduced as below:
“In the case of Sh. Subhash Chander Saggi, S/o. Nand Kishore Saggi, Third Floor Lajpat Nagar-2, New Delhi for the Assessment Year 2009-10 against order u/s. 250(6) dated 28.03.2017 of the CIT(A)-II, Amritsar in appeal no. 115/2015-16-reg
1) Whether the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)- II, Amritsar was right while allowing the relief to the Assessee of Rs.1,58,12,303/-Which is un-explained cash deposits by applying principal of peak credits. 2) That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal.”
Tersely, we advert the fact of the case for A.Y. 2009-10 to 2011-12.The
assessment was completed u/s 144/147. The addition was made on basis of the
deposit of cash in bank account of the assessee. The assessee filed an appeal before
the ld. CIT(A) by challenging the order of the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) for A.Y.
I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 & C.O. 03/Asr/2019 & ITA No. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 6
2009-10 had considered the assessee’s submission and allowed the peak credit
related to deposit of cash in the bank account. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A)
for A.Y. 2009-10 the revenue filed an appeal before the Bench. The assessee filed
a cross objection against the revenue’s appeal. For A.Ys. 2011-12 and 2012-13 the
ld. CIT (A) partly upheld the order of the ld. AO and for that assessment year the
appellant challenged the order of the appellate authority before us.
In the appeal proceedings, the ld. Counsel had filed a written submission
which is kept in the record. The ld. Counsel vehemently argued and mentioned that
the assessee is 76 years of age and had shifted from ancestral house at Pathankot to
New Delhi in the year 1980. The assessee started the business as dealer in used
vehicles at Sarojini Market, New Delhi. Ever since neither he had run the business
at Pathankot nor the place of residence at Pathankot. The bank account statements
relevant to the case also bear the address at Lajpat Nagar, New Delhi. The cases for
multiple assessment years were reopened. The assessee requested the assessing
officer Pathankot to shift his cases to Delhi because it was extremely difficult for
him to every time come to Pathankot for attending assessment proceedings but
cases were not transferred. The entire amount deposited in the bank accounts was
treated as income of the assessee.
I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 & C.O. 03/Asr/2019 & ITA No. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 7
Before the ld. CIT A the assessee couldn't seek any professional help because of
distance factor and the cases were decided again without verifying the veracity of
facts.Statement on Oath was recorded for AY 2007-08 to AY 2012-13 by the ld.
CIT(A) . In the statement deposed before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee also
submitted that he earned only commissions income from dealings in cars. The
assessee also furnished letters from various car dealers who stated that the assessee
was dealing in cars. For all the impugned assessment years underconsideration the
CIT(A) had same set of facts before him. And this fact has not been controverted
in either of orders.
In the ld. CIT(A)’s order for AY 2009-10, it was observed at Page 7 of the order
that "Considering the nature of bank transactions of the assessee in AXIS Bank Ltd and
ICICI bank Ltd showing deposits of cash/DD/bank Trnsfer and payments through demand drafts and cash withdrawals throughout the year on a regular basis shows that
assessee was doing some business and cash/DD/Bank Transfers entries in the deposits in the bank accounts was his sale proceeds and not the money belonging to some other parties. The payments made were his purchases and expenses. Accordingly the principal of peak credit in the bank account held by the assessee in the year under consideration is
applied for determining the undisclosed income of the assessee hereunder."
I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 & C.O. 03/Asr/2019 & ITA No. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 8
The above order was passed in the year 2017. The department filed appeal against
the order of the ld. CIT(A) while assessee filed Cross objections on various
grounds.Assessment Year 2011-12 & 2012-13 passed on 27-08-2020
The order passed for AY 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11 in the year 2017 were not
considered in CIT(A) orders for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13
In CIT(A)’s order at Page 4, it is observed that:
“Upon a close examination of the pattern of cash deposits, it is seen that on several days
during the year cash was deposited and on the same day a pay order was issued for the
same amount / for an amount which was less by Rs 500 to Rs 1000/-.
Hence circumstantial evidence also supported the statement given by the assessee that he
is earning paltry commission from Rs. 500 to Rs. 1000. While the statement of assessee
was recorded in 2017, CIT A's observations on independent examination of evidence
were framed in 2020. CIT A also refuted the charge of AO that no ITR was filed.
However CITA sustained the whole addition made by the AO”.
4.1. The ld. Counsel further submitted that hence orders passed by the ld.CIT(A)
for AY 2011-12 and AY 2012-13 are passed without considering the orders passed
for AY 2008-09, 2009-10 and 2010-11.
I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 & C.O. 03/Asr/2019 & ITA No. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 9
It is therefore prayed that all the assessment years need to be considered
cumulatively by lower authorities taking into account not only the evidence already
on record but also by allowing assessee to provide further evidence in support of
his submissions because the entire proceedings have been carried out by officers
located at more than 500 kms away from the workplace of the assessee. Had some
local officer at New Delhi had carried out assessment, independent preliminary
investigation could have easily revealed the truth of business of dealings in
vehicles by the assessee carried out by him for decades together.
It is therefore pleaded that assessee be granted appropriate opportunity to explain
his case. The officers at 500 kms away from the work place are not being able to
justify the onerous duty cast upon them under law. It is therefore requested that
conclusions, if any may be reached only after verification of circumstantial
evidence.
The ld. Sr. DR relied on the order of the revenue authorities and not able to
submit any different fact against the submission of the assessee.
We heard the rival submission and considered the documents available in the
record. In the same issue the revenue authorities has took a different view for
assessment year 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. It is fact that there is a reasonable
I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 & C.O. 03/Asr/2019 & ITA No. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 10
cause that assessee was unable to submit the documents before the assessing
authority during assessment proceedings. The ld. CIT(A) had not considered the
material of the cases and on the same issue have a different factual view by the
revenue authorities. In the other issue also the ld. CIT(A) had not adjudicated in
the order of the assessee. After a thoughtful consideration we set aside all the
matters before the ld. CIT(A) for further adjudication and considering the
assessee’s submission. Needless to say, that the ld. CIT(A) shall provide proper
and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee in set aside proceedings.
The evidence/explanation submitted by assessee in its defence shall be admitted by
the ld. CIT(A)and adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) on merits in accordance with law.
We order accordingly.
In the result, the appeal bearing ITA No.313/Asr/2017 is allowed for
statistical purposes. Also, Cross objection alongwith two other appeals are also
allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11.11.2022
Sd/- Sd/-
(Dr. M. L. Meena) (ANIKESH BANERJEE) Accountant Member Judicial Member
I.T.A. No.313/Asr/2017 & C.O. 03/Asr/2019 & ITA No. 159 & 160/Asr/2020 11
AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4) The CIT (Appeals) (5) The DR, I.T.A.T.