Order passed by CIT-Appeals without waiting for Remand Report called from AO quashed

Order passed by CIT-Appeals without waiting for Remand Report called from AO quashed

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR

I.T.A No. 442(Asr)/2013 Assessment Year: 2009-10

Iqbal Singh (Appellant) vs. Income Tax Officer (Respondent)

Date of Order: 04-03-2016

ORDER

PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM):

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of learned CIT(A), dated 7.03. 2013, for Asst. Year: 2009-10.

2. The grounds of appeal taken by assessee are reproduced below.

“(i) That order passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is against law and facts on the file in as much as the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Bathinda was not justified to arbitrarily uphold the addition of Rs.23,90,000/- on account of deposit of cash in saving bank account and also Rs.42,984/- on account of interest accrued in the bank account.

(ii) That the Ld. CIT(A) failed to adjudicate on the ground that the assessment deserved to be quashed as while framing assessment, principles of natural justice were grossly violated.

(iii) That the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified to pass an order without waiting for the Remand Report vide which he had allowed the appellant an opportunity to cross examine Sh. Jagjit Singh and Sh. Kamaljit Singh.”

3. At the outset, the learned AR submitted that learned CIT(A) in the course of appellate proceedings had required Assessing Officer to submit a remand report but instead of waiting for the remand report he passed an order on 7.03.2013 whereas the remand report is dated 12.04.2013 and in this respect filed a copy of remand report dated 12.04.2013. The learned AR submitted that assessee had taken a specific ground before learned CIT(A) as grounds of appeal vide ground no.3 for not getting opportunity to cross examine the persons on the statement of which addition was made but learned CIT(A) did not adjudicate on the above. Explaining the facts of the case the learned AR submitted that this was a case where Assessing Officer had made an addition of Rs.23,90,000/- on account of deposit of cash in Saving Bank Account which the assessee had explained to have received from Sh. Jagjit Singh and Sh. Kamaljit Singh. However, the Assessing Officer, after taking statement from the said persons made the addition and assessee was not provided opportunity to cross examine the same.

4. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied upon the orders of authorities below.

5. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material placed on record. We find that vide ground No.3, the assessee before learned CIT(A) has taken specific ground to cross examine Sh. Kamaljit Singh & Sh. Jagjit Singh from whom the assessee had claimed to have received the money but Ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate on the above ground. We further find that the learned CIT(A) also wanted Assessing Officer to submit a remand report which he had submitted on 12.04.2013 whereas the learned CIT(A) has passed the order on 07.03.2013 before receipt of remand report. Therefore, keeping in view, the rule of natural justice we deem it appropriate to set aside this issue to the office of Assessing Officer who would provide assessee opportunity to cross examine the persons from whom assessee had claimed to have received the money and we order accordingly.

6. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 4th March, 2016.

(A.D. JAIN) JUDICIAL MEMBER  (T. S. KAPOOR) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

• Jewellery purportedly received from grandparent under Will added as unexplained credits
• SC lays down tests to determine if a debt is financial debt or operational under IBC
• Commonality of directors of companies does not mean deposits received was bogus
• Application though named as rectification but if tax is not legitimate, it also touches merit: HC
• Cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 taken as per valuer report by reverse indexing of FMV