Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
Date of Hearing 09.11.2022 Date of Pronouncement 15.11.2022 ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM:
The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Jalandhar, [in brevity the ld. CIT(A)] bearing appeal no.CIT(A)-1/JAL/10119/18-19, date of order 15.05.2019, the order passed u/s 250 (6)of the Income Tax Act 1961, [in brevity the Act] for A.Y. 2011- 12. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld. Income TaxOfficer, Ward-Nawanshahar, (in brevity the AO), order passed u/s 144 r.w.s.
147 of the Act date of order 22.11.2018.
Brief fact of the case is that the assessment was completed with addition of Rs.21,30,000/- related to unexplained deposit in the bank account and Rs.31,48,790/- for undisclosed long term capital gain. The assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) by challenging the order of the ld. AO. The ld. CIT(A) had set aside the issue related to the long term capital gain before the ld. AO after verifying the claim of the assessee related to veracity for filing of the return. The rest issue related to the deposit of cash was rejected due to defect in submission of additional evidenced& amount of Rs.21,30,000/- was upheld.
The aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.
The assessee has challenged only the issue related to the deposit of cash Rs.21,30,000/-. None was present on behalf of the assessee. The matter was taken with the consent of the ld. Sr. DR.
We consider the submission of the revenue and the orders of both the revenue authorities. The ld. AO has made addition on basis of non-submissionof primary evidence during assessment proceedings. During appeal hearing the assessee had not made any request under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rule, 1962.
Hence, no additional evidence was filed before the appellate authority. Therefore, the source of the deposit of cash was unexplained and the evidence was uncalled for before the ld. CIT(A). The relevant part of the order of the ld. CIT(A) i.e. para 5.3 is extracted as below: “5.3 I have carefully considered the facts of the case and submissions of the appellant. The assessee has filed additional evidence in the form of copy of sale deed executed by her husband without requesting for admission of additional evidence and reasons for admissions of the same. Therefore, the additional evidence filed by the assessee is rejected. Further, the assessee has not furnished any confirmation from her husband that he has given Rs. 12,85,000 for deposit into her saving bank account. In the absence of any confirmation the plea of the assessee is dismissed, and addition made by the assessing officer is upheld. Regarding balance addition of Rs. 8,45,000 (8,45,000 + 12,85,000= Rs. 21,30,000), the assessee did not file any proof or even details of having sold the agricultural equipment household items etc. as claimed during the appeal proceedings. No such claim was even filed before the assessing officer. In view of these facts, the assessee has failed to explain the source of cash deposits into her bank account.”
The ld. Sr. DR is also relied on both the orders of the revenue authorities.
Further argued that the assessee was unable to substantiate her claim before the CIT(A) by contravening the Rule 46A. In ground of appeal before the ITAT there is no prayer for submission of additional evidence
7. We find no infirmity in the order of the ld. CIT(A) for rejecting the ground for contravening the Rule 46A during filing the additional evidence.
Impugnedorder was passed by rejecting the Rule 46A. During appeal before the ITAT the assessee prayed through ground of appeal that the ld. CIT(A) had not accepted the additional evidence during appeal hearing. The ld. CIT(A) had properly imposed the power & rejected the submission of assessee for contravening the Rule 46A by speaking order.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing is dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 15.11.2022