AMRIT MOHINI SURI,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 54(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1273/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 March 2023AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had failed to address specific grounds raised by the assessee concerning the reopening of assessment and other grounds. Therefore, the Tribunal remanded the entire matter back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration.

What were the facts?

The assessee filed an appeal against the CIT(A)'s order which partly allowed their appeal against an assessment order. The assessment order had made additions for undisclosed profit from F&O transactions and undisclosed stock.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) properly adjudicated all grounds of appeal, including those related to the reopening of assessment, and whether the additions made were based on proper consideration of evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI ]

Before: SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Jain, C. A. &, Shri P.K. Mishra, C. A
For Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali. Sr. D. R.;
Hearing: 01.03.2023Pronounced: 23.03.2023
1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.02.2020 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] Delhi-36, for assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal :- “

1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without dealing with the grounds (no. 2 & 3) before him agitating the reopening made without application of mind as the information received by the Id. AO from the Investigation Wing was that the appellant had received benefit of Client Code Modification through a broker namely M/s. Amrapali Aadya Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. which was factually incorrect.

2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not dealing with the ground no. 6, and 7 in his order.

3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not adjudicating ground no. 8 made taken by the appellant before him and has also not given any findings in respect of the submissions regarding the same made before him and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.3,48,49,628/- out of which Rs. 3,44,75,154/- are relatable to F & O intra-day transaction of purchases of value of Rs. 1,73,00,000/- and sale of value of Rs. 1,71,75,154/- in respect of 1,00,000 equity shares of Amtek Auto Limited on a single day i.e., 04.03.2010 through a broker M/s. Deepak Chandravadan Dalal resulting in a loss of Rs. 1,24,846/-.

4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the Id. AO has examined and found that the appellant is not properly disclosing the income by indulging in irregular activities resulting in hiding of income by shifting away legit profits in the garb of punching errors on account of Client Code Modification in respect of F & O transactions and thereby sustaining the addition made by the learned assessing officer amounting to Rs. 3,48,49,628/- by grossly ignoring the evidences adduced by the appellant.

5.

The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 1,03,52,431/-. The assessment order came to be passed by making addition of undisclosed profit from F&O of Rs. 3,48,49,628/- and further made addition under undisclosed stock of Rs. 1,81,05,940/-.

4.

Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30.12.2013, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) vide order dated 28.02.2020 partly allowed the appeal which is order impugned in the present appeal. 5. We have heard and perused the material on record and given thoughtful consideration. As per ground of appeal

, the assessee is having grievance against the ld CIT(A) that the ld CIT(A) sustained the reopening of the assessment order u/s 147 without dealing with the ground No. 2 and 3 urged by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) and further, not dealt with the ground No. 6 and 7 by the ld CIT(A). Further, the ld CIT(A) has also not adjudicated the ground No. 8 urged by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) and has not given a specific finding in support of the submission made on those grounds.

6. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the lower authorities and sought for dismissal of the appeal.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →