ACIT, CC-14, NEW DELHI vs. ANUJ BANSAL, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2009/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 October 2022AY 2017-183 pages

In favour of the assessee: the Revenue's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal accepted the assessee's submission that the assessment order was quashed. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal was dismissed as the underlying assessment order no longer existed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which restricted an addition related to cash deposits during demonetization. The assessee argued that the assessment order itself was quashed by a coordinate bench due to legal infirmities.

What were the issues?

Whether the Revenue's appeal is maintainable when the assessment order under challenge has been quashed by a coordinate bench on grounds of procedural illegality.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 153D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “A” DELHI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG & SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA

For Appellant: Shri P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-D.R
For Respondent: Shri Kapil Goel, Adv

PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, A.M.: The captioned appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-XXVII, New Delhi [‘CIT(A)’ in short] dated 16.08.2021 arising from the assessment order dated 31.12.2019 passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 153A r.w. Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) concerning AY 2017-18.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue read as under: “i. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred on facts of the case by ignoring the cash deposit of Rs.1,78,62,500/- out of total deposit of Rs.2,16,87,500/- during demonetization period. ii. Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law

1.

I.T.A. No.3394/Del/2017 2 the ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting addition of Rs.2,16,87,500/- on account of cash deposit during demonetization to Rs.35,50,000/- despite the fact that assessee failed to furnish complete cash book but only cash book related to 2- 3 days and this failed to satisfy the AO about the true nature and source of cash deposit. Iii (a) The Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous and not tenable in law and on facts. (b) The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of the hearing of the appeal”

3. When the matter was called for hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee in the Revenue Appeal submitted that for the Assessment Year 2017-18 in question, the assessee had also filed a Cross Appeal/Cross Objection in order dated 29.04.2022 wherein assessment order passed under Section 153A r.w. Section 143(3) of the Act dated 31.12.2019 which has given rise to the present cause of action, itself has been quashed by the Co-ordinate Bench having regard to the foundational legal infirmities noted with reference to Section 153D of the Act while framing the assessment order under Section 153A of the Act. It was thus submitted that in the light of the fact that the assessment order itself does not survive, the appeal of the Revenue is required to be dismissed in limine.

4. In the absence of rebuttal of the facts pointed out on behalf of the assessee by the Department, the aforesaid plea as raised on behalf of the assessee deserves acceptance. Thus, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in limine.

I.T.A. No.3394/Del/2017 3

5.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed in limine. Order was pronounced in the open Court on 31/10/2022.

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →