IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH `SMC' : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 6405/Del/2018
Assessment Year: 2010-11
SUNITA GARG, VS. ITO, WARD 39(4),
112, SWASTIK APARTMENTS, NEW DELHI
SECTOR-13,
ROHINI,
DELHI 110 085
(PAN: AAGPG3789G)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
Assessee by : Ms. Meenu Agarwal, Adv.
Revenue by : Sh. Pradeep Kumar Meel. Sr. DR.
ORDER
This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Order
dated 30.7.2018 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax
(Appeals)-13, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2010-11.
2. The grounds raised in the appeal read as under:-
1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in
law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of
Assessing Officer and confirming the additions u/s 68 on
account of cash deposits in bank account of the appellant.
2. The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to
have held that cash deposited in bank account of assessee is
due to sales made by the assessee during the disputed period.
2
3. That the learned CIT(A) failed to consider the reasons
for not producing the documents before learned assessing
officer before rejecting the plea to file documents under Rule
46A of the Income Tax Rules by the appellant
4. That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the reason
provided in appeal filed via form 35 for non-adherence to the
notices sent by the learned assessing officer
5. That the learned CIT(A) rejected the application for
submitting documents under Rule 46A on the basis that it was
not in proper application, though the provisions of Rule 46A
does not provide for any specific format.
6. The Appellant therefore prays that AO be directed to delete
the additions made on account of cash deposits u/s 68 of the
Income Tax Act, 1961 by considering the cash deposits are
related to business of the appellant
7. Without considering the facts, assessment order was
issued at an income at Rs. 16,26,615/- as against the NIL
taxable income vide appellant order u/s. 250(6) of the Act and
a demand of Rs. 8,38,831/- has been raised u/s. 156 of the
Act.
8. The appellant craves leave to add, alter and / or amend
all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.
3. Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by
both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake
of brevity.
3
4. During the hearing, Ld. A.R. of the assessee, has stated that
AO has passed the exparte order dated 30.11.2017 u/s. 147/144 of
the Income Tax Act, without giving sufficient opportunity to the
assessee. He further submitted that even the Ld. CIT(A) has also
rejection the application for submitting documents under Rule 46A
on the basis that it was not in proper application, though the
provisions of Rule 46A does not provide for any specific format.
5. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the
authorities below.
6. I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I
have also gone through the order passed by the revenue authorities
as well as the contention raised by the assessee in the grounds of
appeal. I find force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the
assessee that AO has completed the assessment vide exparte order
dated 30.11.2017 u/s. 147/144 of the Income Tax Act, without
giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee. I further find
considerable cogency in the contention of the assessee's counsel
that even the Ld. CIT(A) has also rejected the application for
submitting documents under Rule 46A on the basis that it was not in
proper application, though the provisions of Rule 46A does not
provide for any specific format. Therefore, in the interest of justice,
the issues in dispute are set aside to the file of the AO to decide the
afresh under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being
heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the
necessary documents to substantiate his case and fully cooperate
4
with the AO in the proceedings and did not take any unnecessary
adjournment.
7. In the result, the Assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical
purposes.
Order pronounced on 29-10-2018.
Sd/-
(H.S. SIDHU)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 29-10-2018
SR BHATANGAR
Copy forwarded to:
1.Appellant
2.Respondent
3.CIT
4.CIT(A), New Delhi.
5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT
NEW DELHI.
5
|