Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-12, New Delhi, dated 14.09.2020, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The notice u/s 148 issued in this case is illegal, void and without jurisdiction and accordingly the assessment order passed on the foundation of such notice is liable to be quashed. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) should have held the reassessment proceedings as illegal, void and without jurisdiction
2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer of purchase of Rs. 8,50,000/-as alleged unexplained income u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) should have deleted.
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 17,000/- made by the Assessing Officer as alleged commission paid. The addition made by the Assessing Officer is not sustainable and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) should have deleted the same 4. The alleged reasons given by Assessing Officer and CIT (A) for making/confirming the additions of Rs. 8,50,000/- and Rs. 17,000/- are erroneous, both on facts and in law and, therefore, the additions of Rs. 8,50,000/- and Rs.17,000/- made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by CIT (A) are liable to be deleted.
The additions made and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjunctures. The additions made cannot be justified by any material on record and additions are also excessive.
The explanation given in the evidence produced, material placed that has been made available on record has not been properly considered and judicial interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/ allowances made.
That the assessee reserves the right to add, amend, alter the grounds of appeal.”
Facts of the present case are identical to the facts as in the case of Renu Singhal (ITA no. 1902/Del/2020). At the outset learned representatives of the parties have adopted the same arguments as were made in the case of Renu Singhal (supra).