Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: DR. M. L. MEENA & SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE
ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda,[in brevity the CIT (A)] order passed u/s 250 (6) of the Income Tax Act 1961[in brevity the Act], for A.Y. 2014- 15.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the ld.Income TaxOfficer, Ward-3(2), Ferozepur [in brevity the AO] order passed u/s 143(3) of the Act date of order 27.12.2016.
The assessee has taken the following grounds: - “1. The orders passed by the Assessing Officer and Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) vide orders dated 27.12.2016 and 15.02.2019 respectively are illegal, uncalled for and against the law & facts.
2 The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has sustained the additions merely on conjectures and surmises without any legal basis.
3. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has passed an Ex-parte order and sustained the additions without giving the opportunity of being heard. So the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) should be set aside and calls for fresh adjudication with CIT(A), Bathinda.
4. That, the grounds of appeal raised with the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is as (i) The Assessing Officer has made additions of Rs. 15,54,20,800/- merely under protective basis only to protect the interest of revenue not on the legal basis.
(ii) That the Assessing Officer has himself admitted in his order (Point no. 3 of Assessment Order) that the original beneficiary is M/s Ganesh Rice Mills, Muktsar and appellant is only name to the bank account.
In such circumstances, no addition can be made in the hands of appellant and even not on protective basis.
(iii) That the Assessing Officer has added the cash of Rs. 15,54,20,800/- in total. Nowhere he has made any cycle of the transactions. This is illegal and Additions in such a way cannot be made.
(iv) That the addition of Rs. 1.00 Lac for accommodating the account is wrong as expenses incurred against it, is not reduced.
(v) That the Assessing Officer has acknowledged the affidavit of the appellant regarding accommodating account and accepted the affidavit for accommodation transactions. So, additions made may please be deleted. (vi) The assessee craves leave to argue on any other question of law or facts at the time of hearing of this appeal.”
Brief fact of the case is thatthe addition was made by the ld. AO on basis of protective assessment related to transaction with M/s Ganesh Rice Mills, Muktsar, with assessee amount of Rs.15,54,20,800/-. As per the ld. AO, the assessee has opened a bank account deposited cash and issue cheque in favour of M/s Ganesh Rice Mills, Muktsar. Considering the cash deposit in bank account, the entire deposit was added in the hands of the assessee on protective basis U/s 69 of the Act. Though the substantive assessment was framed in the hands of M/s Ganesh Rice Mills, Muktsar. Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) passed the ex parte order without considering the fact of the case or grounds of the assessee. Being aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before us.
During hearing, the ld. AR filed an affidavit of the assessee which is reproduced as below:
4.1 The ld. AR prayed for setting aside the matter before the ld. CIT(A) for consideration the matter on merit. 5. The ld. DR vehemently argued and relied on the order of both the revenue authorities.