Mahesh Chand Gupta, Gwalior v. ITO., Ward-1(1), , Gwlior

ITA 754/AGR/2018 | 2010-2011
Pronouncement Date: 03-03-2021 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 75420314 RSA 2018
Assessee PAN ALAPG8615N
Bench Agra
Appeal Number ITA 754/AGR/2018
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 9 day(s)
Appellant Mahesh Chand Gupta, Gwalior
Respondent ITO., Ward-1(1), , Gwlior
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 03-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 03-03-2021
Assessment Year 2010-2011
Appeal Filed On 22-11-2018
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AGRA BENCH AGRA BEFORE : SHRI LALIET KUMAR JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 754/AGRA/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 MAHESH CHAND GUPTA NEAR JAMUNA LODGE BAIRAGYA PURA DANAOLI LASHKAR GWALIOR. PAN: ALAPG8615N (APPELLANT) VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER WARD 1(1) GWALIOR (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SMT. SITA SRIVASTAVA SR DR ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR J.M.: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 25.09.2018 OF LD. CIT(A) GWALIOR FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN UPHOLDING VALIDITY OF PROCE EDINGS INITIATED U/S. 147. IT IS PRAYED THAT CIT(A)S ORDER MAY BE NEGATED & ASSESSM ENT MADE ON THE FOUNDATION OF UNLAWFUL NOTICE U/S. 148 BE ANNULLED. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS & IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTICE THAT THE PR. CIT ERRED IN LAW IN A CCORDING SANCTION FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 & THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT MADE BE CANCELLED. 3. THAT WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 & 2 ABOVE THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AS REQUE STED FOR UNDER RULE 46A & CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE CASH DEPOSIT OF R S. 14 92 900/-. THE ADDITION MADE BE DELETED. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A GOVERNMENT SCHOOL TEACHER AND A HANDICAPPED HAVING 45% DISABILITY. TH E CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS DATE OF HEARING 02.03.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03 .03.2021 ITA NO. 754/AGRA/2018 2 REOPENED U/S. 147 OF THE ACT AND NOTICE U/S. 148 WA S ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.14 92 900/- IN HER TWO BANK ACCOUNTS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME NOR ANY RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 142(1) ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE EX PARTE U/S. 144 READ WITH SECTION 147 THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE ADDITION OF RS.14 92 900/- U/S. 69 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE. 3. ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND S UBMITTED SOME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A WHICH WERE NOT ADMITTED BY CIT(A) FOR WANT OF REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT FURNISHING THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. LEARNED CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE RAISED ON VALIDITY OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND MERITS OF THE ADDI TION. HE THEREFORE DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION M ADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. NONE IS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE L D. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD TO MAKE OUT THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL OR TO DISCARD THE FINDINGS REACHED BY LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 5. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON R ECORD IN THE LIGHT OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. DR AND THE FINDINGS REA CHED BY THE LD.CIT(A). FROM THE PERUSAL OF IMPUGNED ORDER IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASS ESSEE FILED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT ADMIT ON THE PREMISE THAT THERE WAS NO REASONABLE C AUSE FOR NOT FILING THE SAME ITA NO. 754/AGRA/2018 3 BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED EX PARTE U/S. 144 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OP PORTUNITY TO FURNISH SUCH EVIDENCE OR HIS EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OF FICER. MOREOVER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO THA T THE NOTICES WERE NOT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER APPEARS TO HAVE PRESUMED THE SERVICE OF NOTICES UPON THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING ANY EXPRES S REASON AS TO THE PROPER SERVICE OF SUCH NOTICES. BE THAT AS IT MAY THE FA CT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED IN ABSENCE OF ASSESSEE U/S. 144 OF THE ACT AND THE CIT(A) HAS DENIED TO ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY ASSESSEE. IN SUCH A SITUATION WE DEEM IT PROPER TO REMAND THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT( A) FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL AFRESH AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES SO FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE BOTH ON VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT AND MERITS OF ADDITION. THE LD. CIT(A) M AY CALL FOR THE REMAND REPORT ON SUCH EVIDENCES FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSE SSEE IS ALSO REQUIRED TO FURNISH ALL THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES ON ITS CLAIMS BEFORE T HE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HE DEEMS FIT TO PRODUCE. NEEDLESS TO SAY REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD SHALL BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 03/03/2021. SD/- SD/- (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) (LALIET KUMAR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: MARCH 2021 *AKS*