Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “G” BENCH, MUMBAI
is filed by Mr. Sukesh Vinod Goel (assessee /appellant) for A.Y. 2013-14 against the appellate order passed by the National faceless appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] dated 11th January, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(3)(4), Mumbai (the learned AO) under section 143 (3) dated 31st March, 2016 was dismissed.
Assessee is aggrieved and has raised following grounds of appeal:-
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law erred in making an addition of Rs. 25,48,191/- on account of F&O Business Income not appreciating the fact that the same has already been offered to tax.
3. That the Ld. CIT (A) on the facts and circumstances of the case erred in accepting Ld ACT finding that appellant has accepted that he has not declared F&O profit of Rs 25,48,191 earned from M/s Kali commodity pvt. Ltd.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law by holding long term capital gain u/s 10(38) as bogus and making an addition of Rs 18,50,118/- u/s 68 on account of unexplained cash credit.
5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law by not considering the merits of the case and passing the order in limine”
Fact shows that assessee is an individual and is regularly filing its return of income. For A.Y. 2013-14 assessee filed his return of income on 29th June,
i. Disallowance under section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act of ₹ 2,150,888/–, ii. Addition of future and option business income of ₹ 2,548,191/–, iii. Additions of ₹18,50,118 under Section 68 of the Act.
Thus, the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 84,14,246/- against the returned income of ₹ 18,65,015/. 05. Assessee aggrieved with the order of the learned Assessing Officer preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). The learned CIT (A) passed an order without hearing the assessee, as notices issued to the assessee are not complied with. The learned CIT (A) on the merits confirmed the addition/disallowance of ₹21,50,888/– for non- deduction of tax at source on interest paid to resident individuals on unsecured loan. He also confirmed the addition of ₹ 2,548,191/– as according
The learned Authorized Representative submitted that assessee has made a detailed submission dated 20th February, 2019 before the learned CIT (A) but same has not been considered at all. Later on appeals migrated to NFAC.
Even on the merit he submitted that a. with respect to non-deduction of tax at source the assessee has paid the interest on whose payment the tax has not been deducted however, the assessee relied upon the second proviso to section 40 (a)(ia) of the Act, which exempted assessee from disallowance on certain conditions. The assessee submitted all those details and stated that that those taxpayers have already offered the interest income in the return of income and also submitted the certificate of the CA in the requisite form. Therefore, the disallowance does not occur.
c. On the issue of the addition of long-term capital gain under section 10 (38) of the Act as bogus to the extent of ₹ 1,850,118 and added under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The learned Authorized Representative submitted that the assessee has purchased 10,000 shares of Utkarsh Agency at ₹ 10 each on 21st February, 2011 in physical form. The broker’s note from Warner M Ltd was also produced and the bank statement showing payment of ₹ 1 lakh was also shown to the learned Assessing Officer. The assessee thereafter got these shares dematerialized and later on Utkarsh Agency was amalgamated with Scan Infrastructure Private Limited and accordingly, 10,000 shares of that company were converted into 5000 shares of the new entity. Those shares were sold by the assessee in A.Y. 2013-14 and broker note of D.B. & Co. was also submitted. The assessee has given the complete documentary evidences before the learned assessing officer, however, the learned AO has made the addition on the basis of suspicion. The assessee further relied upon the several d. The learned Authorized Representative submitted that despite making the proper submission before the learned CIT (A) by way of written submission , he confirmed addition without considering the same.
The learned Departmental Representative vehemently submitted that the assessee has not represented its case before the learned CIT (A), even after the dates were given by him and therefore, there is no error in the order of the learned lower authorities.
We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. The fact shows that the addition was made in the assessment order passed under section 143 (3) of the Act dated 31st March, 2016 against which the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT (A). Before us, the assessee has submitted a paper book wherein it was stated that the above paper book was submitted before the learned CIT (A)-16, Mumbai. The detail written submission was placed before us containing 9 pages which is copuy ogf submission before CIT (A) . Later on, the appeal of the assessee was migrated to the faceless appeal Centre and the above submission
Accordingly the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 18.08.2023.