MANISHA GUPTA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 38(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 6785/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 December 2022AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that remanding the matter to the CIT(A) for de-novo consideration with a direction to admit additional evidence would render substantial justice. The assessee was to be provided an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's case was selected for scrutiny based on information of share investment. The assessee had not filed an ITR for the relevant assessment year, leading to reassessment proceedings and an addition of Rs. 8,50,678/- for undisclosed income.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition without proper enquiry into the assessee's plea of having two PANs and without admitting additional evidence, violating principles of natural justice.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, [ DELHI BENCH : “E” NEW DELHI ]

Before: DR. B. R. R. KUMAR & SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S.

For Appellant: Shri Sushil Wadhwa, C. A.;
For Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad
Hearing: 05.12.2022Pronounced: 08.12.2022

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13 [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals) New Delhi, dated 29.05.2019 for assessment year 2010-11.

2.

The assessee has raised the following substantive ground of appeal:-

2 ITA. 6785/Del/2019 Mrs. Manisha Gupta, ND

“That having regards to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in holding that “the amount of Rs.850678/- remained unexplained” while the plea of the appellant that she was holding two PAN was rejected without any enquiry and proper perusal of the documents submitted in support of claim. Application filed under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was not accepted and impugned addition has been made by recording incorrect facts and findings and without observing the principles of natural justice.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that, the case of the assessee was selected for scrutiny assessment on the information that the assessee made investment of shares of Rs. 8,50,678/- during the Financial Year 2009-10 relevant to Assessment Year 2010-11. Further as per the record with the Department, the assessee had not filed ITR for the Assessment Year 2010-11. Therefore, after recording the reasons notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued and the assessment proceedings have been initiated. The assessment order came to be passed on 11/12/2017 by making an addition of Rs. 8,50,678/- on account of income from undisclosed sources.

4.

As against the assessment order dated 11/12/2017, the assessee has preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT (A) vide order dated 29/05/2019 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.

5.

As against the order dated 29/05/2019, the assessee has preferred the present appeal on the grounds mentioned above.

6.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee vehemently submitted that the addition has been sustained by the CIT(A) by rejecting the plea of the assessee that she was having two PAN and without making any enquiry on the documents

3 ITA. 6785/Del/2019 Mrs. Manisha Gupta, ND submitted in support of the same. Further, application filed u/s 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 was not accepted and the order has been passed with in-correct facts and in violation of principle of natural justice. Therefore, the assessee has sought for remanding the matter to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for de- novo consideration by admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee.

7.

The Ld. DR has submitted no objection for remanding the matter to the file of CIT(A) for de-novo consideration. By recording the submissions of both the parties, we are of the opinion, that if the matter is remanded to the file of CIT(A) for de-novo consideration, with a direction to admit the additional evidence, substantial justice would rendered. Accordingly, the Grounds of Appeal No. 1 is allowed for statistical purpose by remanding the matter to the file of CIT(A) with a direction to consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee and pass the order in accordance with law. Needless to say, the assessee shall be provided with opportunity of being heard.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on : 08th December.2022.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →