Bhupendra Bhimraj Shah, Ahmedabad vs Department Of Income Tax

सुनवाई क तार ख/ Date of Hea ring : 13 /02/201 5 घोषणा क तार ख /Date of P ronouncement: 20/02/2015

आदेश /O R D E R

PER MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER

This is an Appeal filed by the Revenue arising from the order of the learned CIT(A)-XXI, Ahmedabad, dated 30.05.2011. The grounds raised are as under:

"1. The learned CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.24,51,500/- made u/s. 69 of the IT Act on account of unexplained cash deposited in Amarnath Co.op.Bank Ltd, Ahmedabad.

2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in admitting the fresh evidences & without giving any opportunity to the Assessing Officer on the principle of law and natural justice and thereby violated the provisions of Rule 46A of the I.T. Rules."

2. Facts in brief as emerged from the corresponding assessment order passed u/s.143(3) dated 30th of December, 2010 were that the Assessee in individual capacity is earning salary and interest income. It has also been informed that the Assessee was having the proprietorship business ITA No.1867/Ahd/2011 ITO Ward-13(4) Ahmedabad Vs. Bhupendra B. Shah For A.Y. 2008-09 -2-

income. A return of income of Rs.99,260/- was filed. It was noted by the AO that there were cash deposits in the bank to the tune of Rs.24,51,000/-. In the absence of necessary details the same was taxed in the hands of the Assessee.

2.1 When the matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, the Assessee has furnished books of account in respect of proprietorship income. Learned CIT(A) has accepted that evidence and held that the cash deposits as made u/s.69 of IT Act were explained by the Assessee; therefore, in consequence the impugned addition was deleted.

3. From the side of the Revenue, learned Sr.D.R., Mr. Dinesh Singh appeared and his main grievance was that the relevant details were not furnished before the AO; therefore, the proper investigation could not be completed. He has further pleaded that learned CIT(A) has infringed Rule 46A of IT Rules by accepting fresh evidences without granting an opportunity of hearing to the AO. Because of this reason, Ground No.2 has also been raised before the Tribunal. In short, he has vehemently argued that this matter should go back to the stage of first appeal.

4. From the side of the respondent-assessee, learned A.R., Mr. Om T. Bajaj appeared and supported the order of learned CIT(A). However, he has not seriously objected the suggestion of the Revenue to restore this issue for reconsideration.

5. Having heard the submissions of both the sides and considering the manner in which learned CIT(A) has passed the order without providing ITA No.1867/Ahd/2011 ITO Ward-13(4) Ahmedabad Vs. Bhupendra B. Shah For A.Y. 2008-09 -3-

an opportunity of hearing to the Revenue Department which according to us was an infringement of Rule 46A, specially when certain fresh evidences were entertained, therefore in the interest of natural justice, we hereby restore this issue back to the stage of learned CIT(A) to be decided as per law, needless to say, after granting an opportunity of hearing to both the sides. Since, the ground has been restored back; hence allowed only for statistical purpose.

6. In the result, the Appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purpose only.

Sd/- Sd/- (ANIL CHATURVEDI) (MUKUL Kr. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated /02/2015 Prabhat Kr. Kesarwani, Sr. P.S. आदेश क त ल प अ े षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant 2. यथ / The Respondent. 3. संबं धत आयकर आयु त / Concerned CIT

4. आयकर आयु त(अपील) / The CIT(A)-III, Ahmedabad

5. वभागीय त न ध, आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad

6. गाड फाईल / Guard file.

आदेशानुस ार / BY ORDER,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.Registrar) आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, अहमदाबाद / ITAT, Ahmedabad