Case Number: ITA 5547/DEL/2019
Appellant: Naresh, Ghaziabad
Respondent: ITO Ward 2(5), Ghaziabad
Assessment Year: 2011-12
Result: Appeal Allowed for Statistical Purposes
Case Filed on: 2019-06-26
Order Type: Final Tribunal Order
Date of Order: 2021-11-10
Pronounced on: 2021-11-10
The case involves an appeal filed by Naresh from Ghaziabad against the order of the Income Tax Officer (ITO) Ward 2(5), Ghaziabad. The appeal pertains to the assessment year 2011-12, where the primary contention revolves around the addition of Rs. 11,97,940 made by the Assessing Officer (AO) under sections 147/144 of the Income Tax Act.
The appeal was filed by Naresh against the AO’s order, which sustained the addition of Rs. 11,97,940 to his income. The AO had reopened the assessment on the basis of information that Naresh had deposited cash of Rs. 11,89,500 in his savings bank account maintained with Oriental Bank of Commerce, Ghaziabad, but had not filed his return of income for the relevant assessment year.
The case was heard before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Delhi Bench SMC-1) in New Delhi on 10th November 2021. The bench comprised Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member. The hearing was conducted through virtual mode.
The AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act after recording reasons for reopening the assessment. Naresh responded by submitting a copy of his PAN, bank account details, and Khasra and Khatauni documents, asserting that the cash deposits were from agricultural transactions conducted along with his brother. However, the AO rejected this claim due to a lack of supporting evidence and completed the assessment under section 144, treating the cash deposits as unexplained income.
The appellant’s counsel, Shri Deepanshu Aggarwal, CA, argued that the assessment was completed ex parte due to non-compliance with statutory notices, which was beyond Naresh’s control. He further contended that the additional evidences, which could substantiate Naresh’s claim, were unjustly rejected by the CIT(A).
The Tribunal observed that the AO had reopened the assessment because Naresh failed to explain the source of the Rs. 11,89,500 deposited in his bank account. The CIT(A) also rejected the additional evidences provided by Naresh, which supported his claim that the deposits were from agricultural income.
In his order, Shri R.K. Panda noted that Naresh was primarily an agriculturist and lacked the financial capability to pay the huge tax demand. He found merit in the argument that Naresh should be given an opportunity to substantiate his case with additional evidence.
Considering the facts and in the interest of justice, the Tribunal decided to restore the issue to the AO’s file, directing the AO to provide one final opportunity to Naresh to substantiate his case. Naresh was instructed to present the necessary details regarding the source of the cash deposits. The AO was directed to decide the issue based on the facts and law after providing due opportunity to Naresh.
The Tribunal allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, directing the AO to grant Naresh an opportunity to present his case with the requisite details regarding the source of the cash deposits.
The order was pronounced in the open court on 10th November 2021 by Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member.
Members Present:
Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member
Document Reference:
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(A) Ghaziabad
5. DR: ITAT
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT New Delhi
Appeal by Naresh, Ghaziabad against ITO Ward 2(5) in ITA No. 5547/DEL/2019
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform