IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3512/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Sh. Mahesh Chand Gupta, vs. ITO, WARD-47(2) Flat No. UG-3, RZF-1/25/B, New Delhi Gali NO.1, Mahavir Encalve, Palam New Delhji 110 045 (PAN: AILPG9367M) (ASSESSEE) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by: Sh. Ved Jain, Adv. & Sh. Ashish Chadha, Adv. Revenue by: Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing on : 05/10/2016 Order Pronounced on : 14/10/2016 ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against order dated 09.2.2016 passed by Ld. CIT(A)-21, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2009-10 on following grounds:- 1. On facts and circumstances of case, learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] has erred, both on facts and in law in upholding additions made by AO. 2. (i) On facts and circumstances of case, learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding assessment order passed by AO u/s 144 of 2 Act, which is against principles of natural justice, as no adequate opportunity of being heard was allowed to assessee be AO. (ii) That learned CIT(A) has upheld order of AO without considering fact that non- appearance of assessee before AO was because of reasons beyond the-control of assessee. 3. On facts and circumstances of case, learned CIT(A) has grossly erred in not giving his findings with regard to submissions made by assessee and issue involved in appeal before him. 4. (i) On facts and circumstances of 'case, learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law, in confirming addition of Rs.22,52,450/- made by AOon account of cash deposits made by assessee in its bank account during year. (ii) That learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining above addition by arbitrarily rejecting explanations and evidences brought on record by assessee. 5. (i) On facts and circumstances of case, learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in confirming addition made by AO despite fact that burden as contemplated under Section 68 of Act about nature and source of deposit has been explained by assessee, 3 (ii) Without prejudice to above, learned CIT(A) has erred, both on facts and in law in disregarding fact that addition made should be restricted to amount of peak balance out of alleged unexplained cash deposits made in bank account. 2. Facts narrated by revenue authorities are not disputed by both parties, hence, same are not repeated here for sake of convenience. 3. At time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of assessee has stated that AO has passed assessment order u/s. 144 of Income Tax Act, 1961, which is against principles of natural justice, as no adequate opportunity of being heard was allowed to assessee by AO. He further stated that Ld. CIT(A) has also wrongly upheld action of AO without considering fact that non-appearance of assessee before AO was because of reasons beyond control of assessee. He further stated that Ld. CIT(A) has sustained addition and has not given any reasoning for not accepting submissions of assessee has roughly held that assessee has not been able to establish nature and source of cash deposits. Therefore, he requested that addition in dispute may be deleted. 4. On contrary, Ld. DR relied upon orders of authorities below and opposed request of assessee s counsel. 4 5. I have heard both parties and carefully gone through orders passed by authorities below. I find that AO in his order has observed that none attended nor did file any adjournment letter and also has not filed any supporting documents to offer for explaining source of cash deposit of Rs. 22,52,450/-; assessee has failed to comply show cause notices issued from time to time, which reveals that assessee is not interested in completing assessment proceedings. Therefore, AO finally held that he has no other alternative but to complete assessment proceedings on basis of material available on record and accordingly cash deposit of Rs. 22,52,450/- was added in hands of assessee u/s. 68 of I.T. Act. However, Ld. CIT(A) vide para no. 6. At page no. 7 to 8 of impugned order has observed that during course of appellate proceedings appellant has claimed that in response to notice u/s. 143(2) of I.T. Act he handed over his case to Chartered Accountant, who did not attend proceedings which led to finalization of assessment u/s. 144. Ld. CIT(A) also held that claim made by assessee is not supported by any evidence and as such he finds no infirmity in AO invoking provisions of section 144 of Act and completed assessment vide order dated 21.12.2011. In view of above, I am of considered view that in interest of justice, one more opportunity may be granted to assessee to substantiate his claim before AO. Accordingly, I remit back 5 issues in dispute to file of AO to consider same afresh, under law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to assessee. However, assessee is also directed to produce all evidences/ documents before AO to substantiate his claim and fully cooperate with AO during proceedings. 6. In result, appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in Open Court on 14/10/2016. SD/- [H.S. SIDHU] JUDICIAL MEMBER Date 14/10/2016 SRBHATNAGAR Copy forwarded to: - 1. Appellant - 2. Respondent - 3. CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY By Order, Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Delhi Benches 6 Mahesh Chand Gupta v. ITO, Ward-47(2), New Delhi