TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (11) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... on 08.09.2012 fixing the case for hearing on 17.09.2012. Since none attended on that date another notice u/s. 143 (2) was again issued on 25.09.2012. Although this notice was duly served at the residence of the assessee, however, there was no compliance. Subsequent notices issued by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(2) also remained uncomplied with. The Assessing Officer thereafter proceeded to complete the assessment u/s. 144 of the IT Act. 4. The Assessing Officer noted that the assessee in his return of income has declared total income of Rs. 1,58,400/- under the head "salary" and Rs. 31,800/- under head "income from other sources". However, as per the information received as per AIR the assessee has made cash deposits totaling to Rs. 26,50,000/- in his bank account maintained with ING Vaisya Bank Ltd. on different dates. The Assessing Officer issued a questionnaire u/s. 133 (6) to ING Vaisya Bank Limited calling for the statement of account of the assessee. From the bank statement so obtained he noted that out of the cash deposit so made the assessee has either purchased Demand drafts or issued cheques to his daughter Ms. Richa Dua and Ms. Bhawna and no cash withdrawals has been....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....idavits from various persons, stating that the cash deposited by the appellant in his bank account have been given to the appellant by these people. The evidence so furnished by the appellant have been examined by the AO during the remand proceedings and the remand report so submitted has been reproduced earlier. Considering the remand report on the various evidences filed by the appellant my findings are as below: (i) Anil Sachdeva : The relevant part of the remand report on this amount of Rs. 3,00,000/- is as below: "Sh. Anil Sachdeva has stated that he had never signed the affidavit. His telephone number mentioned in the affidavit is correct but his PAN is not correct. The other facts regarding giving of Rs. 3,00,000/- for getting Demand Draft in favour of Mis Hundai Motors ltd are not correct. He had not given any amount of Rs. 3,00,0001- to Sh. Padam lal Dua in cash in the F.Y. 2010-11 and also had not purchased any vehicle in the F. Y. 2010-11." As evident from above the appellant's contention that this money had been given by Sh. Anil Sachdeva to the appellant fails on all counts. Hence, I see no reason to provide any relief to the appellant for this amount. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....unds of the appellant are partly allowed. The AO is directed to share the statements of all the four persons recorded by the AO namely Sh. Anil Sachdeva, Sh. Sanjay Khattar, Sh. Parkash Sachdeva and Ms. Bhawna Narula with the respective AOs of these assessees, for taking suitable action not only under the under Income Tax Act but also under other statutory provisions. taking suitable action not only under the under Income Tax Act but also under other statutory provisions." 7. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds :- 1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Faridabad, has erred in law as well as onfacts and in circumstances of the case in upholding the addition of Rs. 19,85,000/- out of total addition of Rs. 26,65,000/- made by the AO on account of cash deposit. 2. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),Faridabad, has erred in law as well as on facts and in circumstances of the case in upholding addition without appreciating duly sworn affidavit submitted by the assessee. 3. That the Learned Commissioner ofIncome Tax(Appeals), Faridabad,has erred in law as well ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d all the facts correctly. However, neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) has considered this important document of vital importance. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) on the basis of statement of Mr.Prakash Sachdeva confirmed the addition pertaining to Mr. Anil Rs. 3,00,000/- Mr. Sanjay Khattar Rs. 2,50,000/- and Ms. Bhawna Narula Rs. 13,60,000/-. He submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the facts correctly and without providing opportunity to cross-examine the persons, who have deviated from their original affidavits, had sustained the addition merely on the basis of remand report of the Assessing Officer. Further the rejoinder to the remand report has not been properly considered by the CIT(A). He accordingly submitted that the addition made by the CIT(A) should be deleted. 9. The Ld. DR on the other hand heavily relied on the order of the CIT(A). He submitted that to substantiate the source of the cash deposits in the bank account the assessee had produced the statements of certain parties before the Assessing Officer. However, when the Assessing Officer recorded the statements of those persons on oath they flatly denied to have made the cash deposits on be....