The Tax Publishers2021 TaxPub(DT) 1133 (Jp-Trib)

INCOME TAX ACT, 1961

Section 250

Where all the documents placed on record by the assessee before CIT(A) were accepted without any objection and in furtherance of his action of having accepted the same, he forwarded it to AO for seeking his remand report but in absence of remand report submitted by AO, CIT(A) had taken contrary view and dismissed the appeal of the assessee, then in such circumstances the non-submission of remand report by the AO was used to the disadvantage of the assessee by the CIT(A) as the AO failed to submit the desires report. Therefore, in that eventuality, the inference should have been drawn in favour of the assessee as the AO had no valid basis or reasons to rebut the additional evidences produced by the assessee but by doing so the CIT(A) had committed an error and simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee has failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposit in the bank account. Therefore, additional evidences were admitted and matter was remanded back to AO for the deciding the issue afresh.

Appeal CIT(A) - Additional evidence - CIT(A) admitted additional evidence but decided the appeal against assessee for want of remand report from AO -

Assessee deposited cash in his saving bank account. AO made addition in the case of assessee by treating the bank deposits as unexplained deposit under section 68 as the assessee could not furnish the supporting documents and therefore, in absence of those supporting documents, added these amounts in the total income of the assessee. During the pendency of appeal before CIT(A), assessee filed an application under rule 46A of the IT Rules for admitting documents in shape of bank accounts summary for period. However, the CIT (A) forwarded the written submissions alongwith the documents to the assessing officer and called for the remand report but the assessing officer having been issued remainders, had not submitted remand report. Therefore, the CIT(A) took the view that the appeal of the assessee could not been kept pending indefinitely for want of remand report, therefore, the CIT(A) decided to adjudicate the appeal in absence of remand report. Held: While doing so, the non-submission of remand report by the AO was used to the disadvantage of the assessee by the CIT(A) as the AO failed to submit the desires report. Therefore, in that eventuality, the inference should have been drawn in favour of the assessee as the AO had no valid basis or reasons to rebut the additional evidences produced by the assessee but by doing so the CIT(A) had committed an error and simply dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the assessee has failed to explain the nature and source of cash deposit in the bank account. Therefore, additional evidences were admitted and matter was remanded back to AO for the deciding the issue afresh.

Followed:Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji & Others (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC) : 1987 TaxPub(DT) 1279 (SC), CIT v. Chandra Kant Chanu Bhai Patel (2011) 202 Taxman 262 (Del) : 2012 TaxPub(DT) 402 (Del-HC), CIT v. Virgin Securities & Credits Pvt. Ltd. (2011) 332 ITR 396 (Del) : 2011 TaxPub(DT) 936 (Del-HC), Avan Gidwani v. Asstt. CIT ITA. No. 5138/Mum/2015 : 2016 TaxPub(DT) 2174 (Mum-Trib) and Abhay Kumar Shroff. v. ITO (1997) 63 ITD 144 (Pat-Trib) : 1997 TaxPub(DT) 1283 (Pat-Trib).

REFERRED :

FAVOUR : Matter remanded.

A.Y. : 2008-09



IN THE ITAT, JAIPUR BENCH

SUBSCRIBE TaxPublishers.inSUBSCRIBE FOR FULL CONTENT

TaxPublishers.in

'Kedarnath', 7, Avadh Vihar, Near Nirali Dhani,

Chopasni Road

Jodhpur - 342 008 (Rajasthan) INDIA

Phones : 9785602619 (11 am - 5 pm)

E-Mail : mail@taxpublishers.in / mail.taxpublishers@gmail.com