Appellant's Income Disputes & Asset Costs Upheld Unfairly; ITAT Remands for Fair Hearing

The appellant challenged the addition of undisclosed income from cash deposits in the bank account, contending they were related to a land sale. The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition without considering evidence. The appellant also disputed another undisclosed income addition, explaining it was from a previous land transaction. The ld. CIT (A) upheld this addition without considering the source. Additionally, an addition for a variance in asset cost transfer was confirmed despite appellant's arguments. The ITAT set aside the ex parte decision by the ld. CIT (A) for not considering written submissions, remanding the matter for a fair hearing. Appeal allowed for statistical purposes.

---

---

Issues:
1. Addition of Rs. 30,50,000 as undisclosed income - cash deposits in bank account.
2. Addition of Rs. 15,00,000 as undisclosed income - cash deposits in bank account.
3. Addition of Rs. 3,65,836 - difference between DLC and cost of asset transferred.
4. Appeal process - ex parte decision by ld. CIT (A).

Analysis:
1. The appellant challenged the addition of Rs. 30,50,000 as undisclosed income due to cash deposits in the bank account. The appellant contended that the amount represented sale consideration for land, supported by sale agreement evidence. The ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition, disregarding the unregistered agreement. The appellant sought deletion of the addition.

2. The appellant disputed the addition of Rs. 15,00,000 as undisclosed income from cash deposits. The appellant explained that the deposits were from the return of advance received from a previous land transaction. The ld. CIT (A) upheld the addition without considering the source of the deposits. The appellant's submission was overlooked, leading to the confirmation of the addition.

3. The addition of Rs. 3,65,836 was made for the variance between DLC and the asset cost transferred by the appellant to a partnership firm. The ld. CIT (A) confirmed the addition despite the appellant's argument that section 50C did not apply due to the transfer being in accordance with section 45(3) of the Act. The appellant's contention was dismissed, resulting in the addition being upheld.

4. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel raised concerns about the ex parte decision by the ld. CIT (A) without considering written submissions. The appellant requested a fresh hearing with proper opportunity for presenting their case. The ld. D/R supported the lower authorities' decisions. The ITAT set aside the ld. CIT (A)'s order, emphasizing natural justice. The matter was remanded to the ld. CIT (A) for a fresh decision after granting the appellant a fair hearing. Consequently, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

---