sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 M/s A Daga Royal Arts vs. ITO (ITAT Jaipur)
 Gagan Infraenergy Ltd vs. DCIT (ITAT Delhi)
 PCIT vs. Chawla Interbild Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd (Bombay High Court)
 All India Federation of Tax Practitioners vs. ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
 Mangammal @ Thulasi vs. T.B. Raju (Supreme Court)
 Mahabir Industries vs. PCIT (Supreme Court)
  Oriental Bank Of Commerce Vs. Additional Commissioner Of Income Tax
  Suresh M. Jamkhindikar vs. ACIT (Bombay High Court)
  Union of India vs. Pirthwi Singh (Supreme Court)

Kuldeep Singh Ghotra A-3/14-15, Sector-11,Rohini, New Delhi V/s. Income-tax Officer, Ward 21(4),New Delhi
October, 19th 2012

                                ITA No.4426 /Del/2012
                             Assessment year: 2007-08

Kuldeep Singh Ghotra              V/s .  Income-tax Officer,
A-3/14-15, Sector-11,                    W ard 21(4),
Rohini, New Delhi                        New Delhi
                            [PAN : AYZPS 1699 E ]

(Appellant)                                             (Respondent)

               Assessee by            Shri Pankaj Dadu, AR
               Revenue by             Ms. Priscilla Singsit, DR

                 Date of hearing                   17-10-2012
                 Date of pronouncement             17-10-2012


 A.N.Pahuja:- This appeal filed on 16.08.2012 by the assessee against an order
 dated 29.02.2012 of the ld. CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi, raises the following grounds:-

              "The learned Assessing Officer, Ward 21(4), New Delhi has erred
              in making additions of ``49,433/- on account of deduction under
              chapter VI-A for want of evidence and ``11 lacs on account of
              unexplained cash credits.

              The learned Assessing Officer received information through AIR
              that the assessee has deposited cash of ``11 lacs in his bank
              account during financial year 2006-07. After which a notice u/s
              143(2) was issued on assessee but the assessee did not receive
              any notice in respect of that and Assessing Officer without going
              into the depths and the facts of the case and without providing the
              opportunity added the said sum to the income of the assessee. An
              appeal was filed before CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi. But the same was
              also dismissed by CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi which is totally unfair and

              The above said additions may please be ordered to be deleted.
                                         2                   ITA no.4426/Del./2012

              The assessee reserves the right to modify, alter, amend or/and add
              grounds of appeal on proceedings of the case.

2.            Facts, in brief, as per relevant orders are that return declaring
income of ``1,12,277/- beside agricultural income of ``1,05,000/-,filed on 9th July,
2007 by the assessee, was selected for scrutiny with the service of a notice u/s
143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) issued on
23.07.2008.    In this case, AIR information was received that the assessee
deposited a sum of ``11 lacs in his saving bank account with Bank of Baroda,
Shalimar Bagh, West Branch, Delhi. In response to the aforesaid notice u/s
143(2) of the Act issued on 23.07.2008 at the Kapurthala address given on PAN
card, none responded.      In response to a subsequent notice issued on 25th
August, 2008 at Rohini address, the assessee appeared before the Assessing
Officer[AO in short] on 5th September, 2008,when he was requested to file copy
of bank statement of all accounts held by him during the previous year, statement
of affairs as on 31.3.2006 and 31.3.2007 and history of the assessee along with
details of his family and business & the case was    adjourned to 22.09.2008. On
the adjourned date, no compliance was made by the assessee.               Even the
subsequent notice dated 5th June, 2009 issued u/s 143(2) of the Act was
returned by the postal authorities with the remarks `premises locked'. Another
notice sent on 9th October, 2009 was also returned by the `postal authorities with
the remarks ` left'. In these circumstances, the AO obtained a copy of bank
statement of the assessee u/s 133(6) of the Act from the          Bank of Baroda,
Shalimar Bagh Branch, Delhi. Thereafter, though the AO issued three notices to
the assessee u/s 143(2) of the Act on 06.11.2009 at assessee's addresses viz..
353, Basti Gujra, Jullunder City, Punjab; WZ-8A, Kirti Nagar, New Delhi and
village Pondoori Rajputhan, PS Bholath, District Kapurthala, Punjab, requiring his
presence on 16.11.2009. However, notice sent to Jullunder & Kirti Nagar,Delhi,
were returned unserved by the postal authorities. In these circumstances, when
the assessee did not explain the source of cash deposited in his bank account
with the Bank of Baroda, the AO proceeded to complete the assessment ex parte
                                       3                    ITA no.4426/Del./2012

u/s 144 of the Act by treating the aforesaid cash amounting to ``11 lacs as
unexplained deposit and added u/s 68 of the Act.

3.           On appeal, the ld. CIT(A) issued a notice dated 24th July, 2011 for
hearing on 18th August, 2011, when adjournment was sought by the assessee for
9th September, 2011. None appeared on this date nor responded to subsequent
notice dated 19th December, 2011        requiring the assessee to attend       on
18.01.2012. The notice dated 24.01.2012 issued for hearing on 15.02.2012 also
went unresponded. Another notice dated 31.1.2012 for hearing on 24.2.2012
was handed over to the AO for service through the inspector . The AO had the
said notice served through affixture on the premises of the assessee at A-3/14-
15, Sector-11, Rohini, Delhi.   None responded to this notice also.      In these
circumstances, when the assessee did not appear before the ld. CIT(A) nor filed
any written submissions, the ld.CIT(A) disposed of the appeal ex parte, holding
as under:-

      "I have perused the documents on record. I shall now take up the
      various grounds of appeal. The only ground of appeal is in r/o an
      addition of `11 lacs as unexplained deposit. The Assessing Officer
      had made the addition since no submissions were filed by the
      appellant in spite of various opportunities.
      In spite of several opportunities being given to the appellant. Since
      no further submissions/evidence was given before me by the
      appellant the addition of `11 lacs made by the Assessing Officer is
      confirmed. The grounds of appeal are rejected."

4.           The assessee is now in appeal before us against the aforesaid
findings of the ld. CIT(A). At the outset, the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee
prayed that the assessee should be allowed another opportunity to explain the
source of cash deposited in his savings bank account with the Bank of Baroda.
Similar request has been made in written submissions filed before us. To a query
by Bench as to why the assessee did not respond to various notices issued by
the AO even after he personally appeared before him on 5th September, 2008
and nor even responded to the subsequent notices issued u/s 143(2) of the Act
                                         4                   ITA no.4426/Del./2012

as also why after seeking adjournment on 18.8.2011 in pursuance to notice
issued by the ld. CIT(A) , the assessee did not respond to any of the subsequent
notice nor filed any submissions, the ld. AR on behalf of the assessee did not
reply and instead reiterated that the matter may be restored to the file of the AO
for a fresh opportunity. To a further query by the Bench as to when the default
committed by the assessee before the AO and learned CIT(A) have not been
explained, why cost of ``10,000/- be not imposed, the ld. AR feebly replied that
cost should be reasonable. On the other hand, the ld. DR did not oppose the
submissions of the ld. AR for restoring the matter back to the file of the AO for a
fresh opportunity.

5.           We have heard both the parties and gone through the facts of the
case. Indisputably the assessee having appeared personally before the AO on
5th September, 2008, did not explain the source of cash of ``11 lacs deposited in
his savings bank account despite sufficient opportunity allowed by the AO nor
submitted any explanation before the ld. CIT(A) even after seeking adjournment
on 18th August, 2011. The ld. AR did not adduce any reasons before us for non-
compliance of various notices issued by the AO and the ld. CIT(A) nor even
placed before us any material, explaining the source of aforesaid cash of `11
lacs. In these circumstances, especially when the assessee is now prepared to
explain the source of cash deposited in his bank account, in the interest of justice
and fair play, we vacate the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to
the file of the AO with the directions to       allow another opportunity to the
asssessee to explain the source of aforesaid cash , subject to payment of cost of
``10,000/- to the Revenue and thereafter, dispose of the matter in accordance
with law. It may be clarified that the AO is free to undertake any independent
enquires, if found necessary and thereafter, may pass such orders as he deems
proper, in accordance with law. The assessee shall pay cost of ``10,000/- to the
Revenue within a week of receipt of this order and furnish a copy of challan.
Thereafter, the assessee shall suo motu appear before the AO on 18.12.2012
along with evidence, explaining the source of cash of `11 lacs, for expeditious
                                           5                    ITA no.4426/Del./2012

disposal of the matter. With these directions, grounds.      raised in the appeal are
disposed of , as indicated hereinbefore.

6. No additional ground having been raised before us in terms of residuary
ground in the appeal, accordingly, this ground is dismissed.

7.    No other plea or argument was made before us.

8.    In the result, appeal is allowed but for statistical purposes.
                   Order pronounced in open Court

              Sd/-                                             Sd/-
     (RAJPAL YADAV )                                    (A.N. PAHUJA)
     (Judicial Member)                               (Accountant Member)


Copy of the Order forwarded to:-

1. Assessee
2. Income-tax Officer, Ward 21(4), New Delhi.
3. CIT concerned.
4. CIT(A)-XI,New Delhi
5. DR, ITAT, 'D' Bench, New Delhi
6. Guard File.
                                                                           By Order,

                                                                        ITAT, Delhi
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Quality Assurance Services Testing and Re-testing

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions