Rajinder Kumar Dua , Chandigarh vs Assessee

Shri Rajinder Kumar Dua, Vs. The DC IT H.No. 152/2 Circle 5(1) Sec-55, Chandigarh Chandigarh

PAN No.ABFPD8700L

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Appellant By : Shri Tej Mohan Singh Respondent By : Shri. S.K. Mittal

Date of hearing : 22/12/2014 Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2015

ORDER

PER T.R.SOOD, A.M.

The appeal filed by the assessee is against the order passed by the

CIT(Appeals), Chandigarh dt. 30.04.2014.

2. In this appeal the assessee has raised the following grounds:-

1. That the order of Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and against the facts.

2. a) That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs.2,41,976/- which represents credit card expenditure of the assessee on the grounds that the assessee had failed to provide requisite information in this regard.

b) However, the assessee failed to interpret the information requirement of the worthy A.O. and was not able to provide the requisite information.

c) On becoming aware of the information so required, the assessee submitted the details of the expenditure. 2

3. That penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(b) and section 271(1)(c) initiated by the worthy A.O. may be waived off.

3. Ground No.2 : After hearing both the parties we find that originall y

assessee filed return for Rs. 5,85,620/- which was later on revised to Rs.

5,83,668/-. Later on, it was noted that assessee has transacted a sum of Rs.

2,4l,976/- through credit card and, therefore, assessment was reopened and

notice u/s 148 was issued. However, nobody appeared before the Assessing

Officer despite notice, therefore, assessment was completed by making addition

of Rs. 2,92,166/- on account of credit card transaction and deduction on account

of housing loan by completing the assessment on ex. parte basis u/s 144.

4. On appeal, Ld. C IT(A) confirmed the addition.

5. Both the parties were heard in detail.

6. After considering the rival submissions we agree with the contention of

Ld. Counsel that assessee was aboard during assessment proceedings that is why

proper representation could not be made. However, we fail to understand that

when assessee is a salaried employee than how addition has been made on

account of credit card transaction because the same cannot be construed as

expenses of the assessee. However, since assessee has been denied of the

opportunit y of being heard, therefore, we set aside the order of Ld. CIT(A) and

remit the matter back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to re-

examine the issue after providing adequate opportunit y to the assessee.

7. In the result appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 12.01.2015

Sd/- Sd/-

(BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 12 t h January, 2015 rkk

Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The C IT, The CIT(A), The DR 3