9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (4) TMI 952X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the appeal on the aforesaid issue. - Hon ble The Chief Justice Sri Vipin Sanghi And Hon ble Sri Justice Alok Kumar Verma For the Appellant : Mr. Pulak Raj Mullick, learned counsel For the Respondent : Mr. Hari Mohan Bhatia, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent / Revenue JUDGMENT PER HON BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI Delay Condonation Application (IA No. 2 of 2022) In view of the fact that the delay in preferring the present appeal is only 38 days, and since Mr. Bhatia fairly does not oppose the delay condonation application, the same is allowed for the reasons given in the application. The delay, accordingly, stands condoned. Income Tax Appeal No. 07 of 2022 2) In terms of the order dated 20.05.2022, Mr. Bhatia has produce ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt / informations and as such the revenue had failed to discharge their burden, which squarely fell on their shoulders? 5) The appellant is engaged in private coaching and vocational training profession. In the Assessment Year 2007-08, the appellant earned income from business (profession) and other sources. She filed her income-tax return for the Assessment Year 2007-08, on 18.03.2008, declaring an income of Rs.1,18,500/-, earned from private coaching and vocational training from her residence. Since the income shown was below Rs. 1.20 lacs, she claimed that she was not required to maintain books of account. She declared cash held in business of Rs.1,100/- in column 6, Part-A of the balance sheet. 6) The Income Tax Department carried out s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 68 to the tune of Rs.4,13,500/- without any opportunity to the assessee. Consequently, penalty proceedings were also initiated with the issuance of notice under Section 271(1)(c). 8) The Assessing Officer passed the assessment order under Section 153A(1)(b) read with Section 143(3) on 01.09.2014. The assessee filed an appeal under Section 249 of the Income Tax Act against the assessment order dated 01.09.2014, before the Commission of Income Tax (Appeals), Dehradun. He deleted the addition of Rs.1,50,000/-, being gift received from father, i.e., blood relative. However, so far as the addition under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act was concerned, i.e. the net cash in hand of Rs. 4,13,000/- (Rs.4,66,500 minus Rs. 53,050/-) credit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), as mandated by Section 251(2) of the Income Tax Act, before enhancing the cash in hand from Rs. 4,13,500/- to Rs. 4,66,500/-. 11) We have heard learned counsels. 12) We find merit in the submission of Mr. Mullick that the appellant / assessee was entitled to put to notice before enhancing the cash in hand, by the Commissioner (Appeals). 13) We, accordingly, answer the first question in favour of the assessee, and against the Revenue. The matter is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for rehearing of the appeal on the aforesaid issue. 14) So far as the second question framed aforesaid is concerned, we do not have the relevant factual position before us. It appears that when the matter was argued on 20.05.2022, the only issue raised by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
