VIJAY SINGHAL,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 36(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1903/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 December 2022AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the Assessing Officer was justified in reopening the assessment as it was based on information suggesting escapement of income. However, for the additions on merits, the Tribunal found that the assessee had provided supporting documents and there was no material to suggest the vendor was not in existence or the evidence was unreliable.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer for purchase of Rs. 8,50,000/- and commission paid of Rs. 17,000/-. The reassessment was initiated based on information suggesting escapement of income.

What were the issues?

The primary issues were the validity of reassessment proceedings and the sustainability of additions made for purchases and commission without sufficient evidence from the revenue.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri Sumesh Swani, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05.12.2022Pronounced: 23.12.2022

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.

3.

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.

5.

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.

6.

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.

7.

That the assessee reserves the right to add, amend, alter the grounds of appeal.”

2.

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).

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →