SH. SUBASH CHANDER SEHGAL,MOGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER. WARD - 2, MOGA

Per Bench:

These appeals have been filed by the by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Ludhiana even dated 05.11.2018 in respect of Assessment Years: 2008-09 to 2010-11

wherein the appellant has challenged that the ld. CIT(A) has summarily

2 ITA Nos. 74 to 76/Asr/2019 Subhash Chander Sehgal v. ITO rejected the appeals without considering details of statement of facts and

the written submissions filed by the appellant assessee.

the assessee. Considering written synopsis of 12 pages and the paper book comprising of 72 pages filed on record on 20th April, 2023, it noted

that the grievance of the assessee has been overlooked by the CIT(A) by

not taking cognizance of the submissions of the appellant assessee and

rejected its appeal in summary manner by passing the order ex-parte qua

the assessee. However, it is decided to hear the ld. DR and adjudicate the

appeal on merits of the case.

property on different dates out of the cash as claimed being available with

the appellants on the date of investment in disputed properties. However,

the appellant assessee contended that the AO and the ld. CIT(A) has

rejected the submission and documentary evidences filed by the appellant

on the availability of cash in hand as opening balance and investment in

properties and cash credits in bank account u/s 68 of the I. T. Act without

granting proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant and ignoring the

facts available on record and the information and documentary evidences

3 ITA Nos. 74 to 76/Asr/2019 Subhash Chander Sehgal v. ITO filed before the authorities below. It is also pleaded in grounds that the

additional evidence under Rule 46A was rejected in violation of the

provisions of law.

revealed that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the assessee’s explanation and

application filed under Rule 46A for admission of additional evidence

merely stating as deserved to be rejected without giving any reason for

rejection of the additional evidence in view of the provisions of Rule 46A of

the ITAT Rule 1963. In our view, the ld. CIT(A) ought to have rebutted the

admission of additional evidence being not covered under the four

exceptions provided under Rule 46A of the ITAT Rule 1963 for non-

admission of the additional evidence filed by the assessee.

the appellant assessee regarding adverse inference/decision taken against

the assessee in confirming the finding of the AO so as to enable the

appellant to file its rebuttal in its defense in view of the principle of natural

justice. In our view, it is a fit case to be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) to

examine the issue of admission of the additional evidence under Rule 46A

afresh and consider the written submission filed on record and may be filed

4 ITA Nos. 74 to 76/Asr/2019 Subhash Chander Sehgal v. ITO in the afresh proceedings after granting sufficient opportunity of being

heard. The ld. CIT(A) is further directed to issue a show cause notice to the

appellant assessee stating therein the proposed adverse action if any to

enable it to file the rebuttal in view of the principle of natural justice. No

doubt, the assessee shall co-operate in the fresh appellate proceedings

before the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, all the three appeals in ITA Nos. 74 to

76/Asr/2019 on identical facts are restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A).

for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.08.2023

Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order