TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 246X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the cash was deposited was jointly held with wife of the assessee. Admittedly the AO did not issue any notice to other joint holder of the account i.e. spouse of the assessee. Assessment was re-opened without application of mind. Moreover, Ld.CIT(A) also did not verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Under these facts, the impugned addition made by re-opening of the assessment, is not justified. Hence, the impugned addition is hereby, deleted. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal are allowed. - ITA No.1961/Del/2021 - - - Dated:- 31-8-2022 - Shri Kul Bharat, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri R.K.Mehra, CA For the Respondent : Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the Act as illegal and also bad in law. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the petitioner's case, the learned CIT(A) erred in law and on facts that the petitioner having pointed out certain misstatements made by the learned assessing officer in Assessment Order as well as in the Remand Report which are not borne out of the assessment records especially that the very first notice issued under section 143(2) on 01-11-2018 which has been stated to have been sent at Najafgarh address as per the assessment order is incorrect in view of the fact that, that was actually sent at some unknown Ambala address thus misleading the process of assessment with mala fide intentions and ulterior motives. 5. That on the facts an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l bank, Najafgarh, New Delhi. The case of the assessee was re-opened u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ the Act ]. Thereafter, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued to the assessee. The AO noticed that in response to the notice issued to the assessee, there was no representation on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, he proceeded to frame the assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 20.12.2018. Thereby, he made addition of Rs.13,402/- on account of income from other sources, being the interest earned on the bank deposits. Further, the AO made addition of Rs.10,43,000/- as unexplained cash deposits. Thus, the AO assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.13,34,790/- against the declared income of Rs.2,78,384/-. 4. Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the present case, I am of the considered view that the assessee ought to have been given a proper hearing by the lower authorities to explain the source of cash deposits. It was stated by the assessee that the bank account in which the cash was deposited amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- was jointly held with wife of the assessee. Admittedly the AO did not issue any notice to other joint holder of the account i.e. spouse of the assessee. Therefore, in my considered view the assessment was re-opened without application of mind. Moreover, Ld.CIT(A) also did not verify the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Under these facts, the impugned addition made by re-opening of the assessment, is not justified. Hence, the impugned addition is here ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
