9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 273X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore the A.O. or the Ld. CIT(A), we deem it appropriate to remand this issue back to the file of the A.O. to be adjudicated afresh in accordance with law after providing due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee appeals are allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA Nos. 663, 664, 673 and 674/Chd/2018 - - - Dated:- 30-6-2021 - N.K. Saini, Vice President And R.L. Negi, Member (J) For the Appellant : R. R. Thakur and M.R. Sharma, Advocates For the Respondents : Ashok Khanna, Addl. CIT ORDER N.K. Saini, Vice President These four appeals by different assessees are directed against the separate orders each dt. 15/02/2018 of Ld. CIT(A)-2, Chandigarh. 2. Since the issues involved are common in all these appeals which were heard together, so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity. 3. At the first instance we will deal with ITA No. 663/Chd/2018 for the A.Y. 2008-09 in the case of Shri Satkar Singh Bawa wherein assessee has raised the following grounds. 1) That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) 2 has wrongly dismissed the appeal of the Appellant without going th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 20, the Contractor will maintain a Bank Account at Chandigarh/Mohali in which the amount payable by M/s. Wembley Coop. Society to the Contractor will be credited. Further vide para-9 of your reply dt. NIL received in this, office on 18.12.15, you have stated that you have done work with M/s. Wembley's Co.op H/B society during the year and all the payments received through cheque from the said society. In this context as per information available with the department, you have received an amount of ₹ 17 lakhs in cash from the said society during the financial year 2007-08 relevant to asstt. year 2008-09. Receipts in support of this contention are enclosed herewith. In this regard, you are hereby required, to show cause where this amount has been accounted for by you, failing Which it will be presumed that you have nothing to say in this regard, and the said amount of ₹ 17 lacs will be added back to your returned income treating it as income from undisclosed sources. 4.2. In response the assessee submitted as under: it is for your kind information that I have not received cash of ₹ 17 lacs from the society during the F.Y. 2007-08 Receipts shown ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .4.2017 following Supreme Court Judgement 89 ITR 65 the same principal. Copy of order already attached, Para 15, 23 and 24 appeal 2008-09. In view of the above, keeping in view of our submissions in assessment year 2008-09 appeal and this reply, kindly delete the addition which has been made by AO on the basis of photocopies and no originals are available with the deptt. Both giver and receiver as alleged have denied this documents. Agreement between the Society and this client prohibits cash transactions. Accounts of both this client and Society are audited and no such payment pointed out. The accounts of M/s. Wembleys are audited by Co-operative Inspector which is a Statutory Auditor of Govt. and that of Mr. Satkar Singh Audited U/s 44AB of the I T Act 1961. 5.1. The Ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee sustained the addition by observing in para 7.3.1 and 7.3.3 of the impugned order as under: 7.3.1 I have carefully considered the submission of the assessee and perused the assessment order. The main contention of the assessee is that the addition has been made on the basis of photocopy of receipts when the original is not available with ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o furnished an affidavit stating therein as under: I Satkar Singh Bawa son of Shri Joginder Singh Prop M/s. S.S. Builders House No. 906 Gilco Heights Kharar do hereby solemnly affirm and declare as under:- 1. That I have filed an affidavit in ITA No. 664/2018 and filing this affidavit in addition to the said affidavit. 2. That I have already stated in the affidavit already filed that the photocopies of the receipts on the basis of which additions has been made are stated to be signed by me which is factually incorrect as the signatures on the same are not of the deponent. Moreover the person who has made the complaint has not been produced for cross examination. The payer of the cash has also denied having paid the cash in question and is also in appeal before the ITAT. 3. That in the interest of justice the signatures on the receipts needs to be got verified by the handwriting experts in order to verify its correctness. 4. That neither the Assessing Officer nor the CIT(A) has allowed opportunity to cross examine the payer of the cash as well as the complainant and genuineness of the receipts on the basis of which additions has been made by the A.O. an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
