9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (1) TMI 457X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... her details from the assessee. In the backdrop of our aforesaid observations, we are unable to persuade ourselves to subscribe to the view taken by the CIT(A) that the assessee had failed to substantiate the availability of funds with him pursuant to the cancellation of the aforesaid 'agreement', dated 09.01.2005. Assessee had sufficient amount available with him on 28.03.2007 for making of cash deposits of ₹ 9 lacs each in his bank account with Standard Chartered Bank, Jalandhar on 04.04.2007 and 05.04.2007, therefore, the same could not have been added as an unexplained investment in his hands - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 247/Asr./2017 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2020 - L.P. Sahu, Member (A) And Ravish Sood, Member (J) For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Ashwani Gupta, C.A. For Respondents/Defendant: Charan Dass, D.R. ORDER Ravish Sood, Member (J) 1. The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar, dated 15.02.2017, which in turn arises from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short 'Act'), dated 30.12.2010 for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. In the absence of any explanation as regards the source of the aforesaid investment of ₹ 18,00,000/-, the A.O. treated the same as an unexplained investment and added it to the returned income of the assessee. On the basis of his aforesaid observations the A.O. framed the assessment under Sec. 144 of the Act, vide his order dated 30.12.2010 and assessed the income of the assessee at ₹ 19,90,770/-. 5. Aggrieved, the assessee assailed the assessment order before the CIT(A). In the course of the appellate proceedings the assessee assailed the framing of the ex-parte assessment under Sec. 144 of the Act, for the reason, that the same was done without affording sufficient opportunity of being heard to him. As regards the source of the cash deposits of ₹ 18,00,000/- made by the assessee in his bank account with Standard Chartered Bank, Jalandhar, it was submitted by the assessee that the same was out of the refund of the earnest money of ₹ 25 lacs that was earlier given him for purchase of a property to Smt. Kamlesh W/o. Sh. Brij Mohan, Resident of House No. 172, Vijay Nagar, Jalandhar. It was claimed by the assessee that he had entered into an 'agreemen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'additional evidence' which as per him had a strong bearing on the adjudication of the issue under consideration, therefore, it was requested by him that as he was for a sufficient cause prevented from producing the same in the course of the assessment proceedings, the same may be admitted under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1963. 6. Observing, that the aforesaid documentary evidence was in the nature of an 'additional evidence' filed by the assessee U/rule 46A, the CIT(A) forwarded the same to the A.O. for examination, and called for a 'remand report' from him. In compliance of the directions the A.O. filed his remand report, dated 02/07.12.2016 with the CIT(A). It was stated by the A.O. that the assessee in the course of the assessment proceedings was afforded sufficient opportunity to produce the requisite documents/information which however it had failed to avail. As regards the merits of the claim of the assessee in respect of the source of the cash deposits of ₹ 18 lacs in his bank account with Standard Chartered Bank, Jalandhar, there was no rebuttal of the same by the A.O. After receiving the aforesaid 'remand report', the CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T(A) held a conviction that the assessee had failed to discharge the burden as regards explaining the source of the funds deposited in his bank account. In the backdrop of his aforesaid deliberations, the CIT(A) was of the view that the A.O. was justified in treating the amount of cash deposits of ₹ 18 lacs as the unexplained income of the assessee for the year under consideration. Accordingly, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O. the CIT(A) upheld his order and dismissed the appeal. 8. The assessee being aggrieved with the order passed by the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the very outset of the hearing of the appeal, it was submitted by the Learned Authorized Representative (for short A.R.) for the assessee that the order passed by the CIT(A) was found to be perverse. It was submitted by the Ld. A.R., that though the CIT(A) after appreciating the fact situation of the case had in all fairness admitted the 'additional documentary evidence' which substantiated the source of the cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee, however, he had failed to consider and appreciate the contents of the same in the right perspective. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is discernible from the assessment order, in the absence of any explanation as regards the source of the aforesaid cash deposits aggregating to ₹ 18 lacs, the same were treated as an unexplained investment by the A.O. On appeal, we find that the assessee had submitted certain additional documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the aforesaid cash deposits. The CIT(A) forwarded the 'additional evidence' that was filed by the assessee with him U/rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1963, to the A.O. and called for a 'remand report'. On a perusal of the records, we find that it has been the claim of the assessee that the cash deposit of ₹ 18 lac in his bank account with Standard Chartered Bank, Jalandhar, was made out of the earnest money of ₹ 25 lac that was received back by him on 28.03.2007 i.e. pursuant to cancellation of the 'agreement', dated 09.01.2005 that was earlier executed by him with Smt. Kamlesh W/o. Sh. Brij Mohan R/o. 172, Vijay Nagar, Jalandhar for purchase of a property. As observed by us hereinabove, the assessee in order to dispel any doubts as regards the veracity of his aforesaid claim had even explained the source ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... take cognizance of the terms of the cancellation mentioned on the backside of the aforesaid 'agreement', dated 09.01.2005, which is found to be signed both by the assessee (purchaser) and Smt. Kamlesh (seller), as well as witnessed by a third party, and read as under: Harish Shoor 2nd party who paid Biana ₹ 25 lacs (Rupees Twenty Five Lacs Only) to Kamlesh First Party has been taken back no dues are balance agreement dtd. 09/01/2005 stands cancelled and first party is free to sell etc. this property. Second party his legal heirs will not claim on first party second party and their legal heirs will not claim on first party on this property. In the backdrop of the aforesaid facts, we are of the considered view that the assessee had duly substantiated on the basis of supporting documentary evidence that was filed with the lower authorities the availability of cash of ₹ 25 lacs with him on 28.03.2007 i.e. on refund of earnest money pursuant to cancellation of the 'agreement', dated 09.01.2005. Although, the CIT(A) in the course of the appellate proceedings had forwarded the additional documentary evidence that was filed by the assessee in or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... from the date on which the hearing of the case was concluded but, where it is not practicable so to do on the ground of exceptional and extraordinary circumstances of the case, the Bench shall fix a future day for pronouncement of the order, and such date shall not ordinarily be a day beyond a further period of 30 days and due notice of the day so fixed shall be given on the notice board. As such, ordinarily the order on an appeal should be pronounced by the bench within no more than 90 days from the date of concluding the hearing. It is, however, important to note that the expression ordinarily has been used in the said rule itself. This rule was inserted as a result of directions of Hon'ble High Court in the case of Shivsagar Veg Restaurant Vs. ACIT [(2009) 317 ITR 433 (Bom)] wherein it was inter alia, observed as under: We, therefore, direct the President of the Appellate Tribunal to frame and lay down the guidelines in the similar lines as are laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Anil Rai (supra) and to issue appropriate administrative directions to all the benches of the Tribunal in that behalf. We hope and trust that suitable guidelines shall be framed and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t while calculating time for disposal of matters made time-bound by this Court, the period for which the order dated 26th March 2020 continues to operate shall be added and time shall stand extended accordingly , and also observed that arrangement continued by an order dated 26th March 2020 till 30th April 2020 shall continue further till 15th June 2020 . It has been an unprecedented situation not only in India but all over the world. Government of India has, vide notification dated 19th February 2020, taken the stand that, the coronavirus should be considered a case of natural calamity and FMC (i.e. force majeure clause) maybe invoked, wherever considered appropriate, following the due procedure... . The term 'force majeure' has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary, as 'an event or effect that can be neither anticipated nor controlled' When such is the position, and it is officially so notified by the Government of India and the Covid-19 epidemic has been notified as a disaster under the National Disaster Management Act, 2005, and also in the light of the discussions above, the period during which lockdown was in force can be anything but an ordinary peri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
