SOBH RAM,PANIPAT vs. ITO, WARD-4, PANIPAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2033/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 January 2023AY 2010-115 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) affirmed the additions in the absence of evidence. To end litigation and for a just decision, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for fresh consideration, allowing the assessee to place documents on record.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer initiated proceedings under Section 147 and made additions on account of unexplained cash deposits, income from undisclosed sources disguised as agricultural income, and undeclared long-term capital gains. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed, with the CIT(A) noting a lack of specific details and evidence for the year under consideration.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of the notice under Section 148 and the merits of the additions made by the Assessing Officer, particularly concerning the lack of evidence to support the assessee's claims.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 250(6)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘G’ NEW DLEHI

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY

For Respondent: Ms. Meenakshi Dohre, Ld. Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.01.2023

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 21.01.2019, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-Karnal (in short “Ld.

Commissioner”), u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

In the instant case, proceedings u/s. 147 of the Act have been initiated against the Assessee and after recording reasons, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on dated 30.03.2017 alleged to be duly served through registered post. The Assessee in response to notice u/s. 148 of the Act, filed its return of income on dated 28.08.2017 by declaring total income at Rs.1,85,000/- and agricultural income at Rs.5,00,000/-.

Subsequently, statutory notices have also been issued to the Assessee.

The Assessing Officer after discussion and examination of the case computed the income of the Assessee and made the additions of Rs.44,88,000/-, Rs,.5,00,000/- and Rs. 2,14,500/- respectively on account of unexplained cash deposits in bank account, income from undisclosed sources which was shown in the garb of agricultural income and Long-term capital gains not declared in the return of income.

3.

The Assessee being aggrieved preferred first appeal before the ld. Commissioner, on the ground of validity of the notice u/s. 148 of the Act as well as on merits, who vide impugned order affirmed the additions on legal aspects, as well as on merits by concluding as under:

“Even at the appellate stage, the appellant has given no specific details in respect of his claim. The reference to appellate orders passed in his case in A.Y. 2009-10 and A.Y. 2013-14 favouring him has no bearing in the year under consideration as there is no evidence on record to justify his claims for this year.”

4.

Before us, the Assessee has filed various documents and claimed that though the Assessee has provided the relevant documents to the ld. Commissioner, however, he failed to consider the same.

5.

On the contrary, the ld. DR supported the orders passed by the authorities below and refuted the claim of the Assessee.

6.

Having heard the parties and perused the material available on record and given thoughtful consideration to the peculiar facts and circumstances, we observe that the ld. Commissioner affirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer in the absence of evidence on record, to justify the Assessee’s claims for the year under consideration. At this stage, we are not inclined to delve into the controversy as to whether the Assessee had filed relevant documents before the appellate authority or not. However, considering the peculiar facts and circumstances and for the end of the litigation and for just decision of the case, we are inclined to remand the case to the file of the ld. Commissioner for decision afresh by considering the documents as placed before us, which are to be placed by the Assessee before the ld. Commissioner. The ld. Commissioner shall afford reasonable opportunity of being heard, if necessitates. The Assessee is also directed to file the relevant documents, as may be needed by the ld. Commissioner for proper adjudication of the issues involved.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 31.01.2023.

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →