D.b. Income Tax Appeal v. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Beawar

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Income Tax Appeal No. 55/2018 Smt. Leela Devi Bumb, 117, Shital Mata Market, KumharMohalla, Bijainagar. ----Appellant Versus The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Beawar. ----Respondent For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gunjan Pathak withMr. Aditya BohraMs. Ishita RawatMr. Kanishk SinghalMs. Priyanshi RoongtaMr. Aditya BohraMs. Ishita RawatMr. Kanishk SinghalMs. Priyanshi RoongtaFor Respondent(s): Mr. Anurag Mathur for Mr. Shantanu SharmaMr. Shantanu Sharma HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMARJudgment AVNEESH JHINGAN, J 29/08/2024 1.This appeal is filed aggrieved of order dated 08.12.2017passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘theTribunal’) Jaipur Bench, Jaipur dismissing the appeal. 2.The brief facts are that during Assessment Year 2012-13, theappellant was engaged in commodity exchange transactions. TheAssessing Officer made an addition of Rs.56,30,000/- for anunexplained cash deposit made in the bank account of theappellant. The appellant failed in the first appeal and before theTribunal. Hence, the present appeal. 3.The appeal was admitted on 04.04.2022 on followingsubstantial questions of law:- “Whether learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in law in not assigning any reason for not takingon record the additional documentaryevidence which was filed by the appellantbefore the CIT (Appeal) but not taken intoconsideration by the First Appellate Authority.” 4.The only issue raised by counsel for the appellant is that acopy of computation, balance sheet; list of parties sufferedlosses/gains during the relevant year; affidavit of the assessee,affidavit of the clients with bills and receipts of payments alongwith the statements of the parties were submitted before theAO/CIT(A) but this was not noticed and considered by theTribunal. 5.The reliance is placed upon Annexure-3 i.e. Index of thePaper Book filed before the Tribunal, which carries a stamp of theTribunal and last line states that the documents were furnishedbefore the AO/CIT(A) during the assessment proceedings. Theargument is that the documents produced were explaining thecash deposit of Rs.56,30,000/-. 6.Learned counsel for the respondent defends the impugnedorder. Submission is that the relevant documents for explainingthe additions were never produced either before the AssessingOfficer or before the Appellate Authority. 7.Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused thepleadings. 8.It would be appropriate to note that during course ofarguments, learned counsel for the appellant produced the copy ofthe paper book, which contains original copies of the affidavits.This aspect needs to be gone into that if these affidavits were filed before the Assessing Officers, how the originals are with thecounsel. Be that as it may from the orders of CIT(A) as also theTribunal, it is not forthcoming that the documents claimed to havebeen produced before the Assessing Officer and AppellateAuthority, were taken into consideration while deciding the appeal.The CIT(A) dismised appeal holding that no documentary evidencewas adduced by the appellant for explaining the cash deposit andto the similar effect are the finding of the Tribunal. Consequently,order of the Appellate Tribunal is set aside and the matter isremitted back to decide the appeal afresh in accordance with lawafter considering the documents claimed before the AO/CIT(A). 9.It is clarified that this Court is neither commenting upon asto whether these documents were produced before the AssessingOfficer or the Appellate Authority, nor the ramifications for non-filing of the original affidavits before the Assessing Officer, if sorequired. 10.Substantial question is answered in favour of the appellantand the appeal is accordingly allowed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J 9.It is clarified that this Court is neither commenting upon asto whether these documents were produced before the AssessingOfficer or the Appellate Authority, nor the ramifications for non-filing of the original affidavits before the Assessing Officer, if sorequired. 10.Substantial question is answered in favour of the appellantand the appeal is accordingly allowed. (ASHUTOSH KUMAR),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Riya/Sunita/118 Whether Reportable: Yes