RAJ SINGH MALIK,ROHTAK vs. ITO WARD - 5, ROHTAK

PDF · subscribers
ITA 439/DEL/2021Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 September 2022AY 2015-165 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal due to the assessee not receiving the order. The Tribunal set aside the orders of the lower authorities and restored the matter to the AO for fresh decision, allowing the assessee to produce additional evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee declared an income of Rs. 6,36,260/-. The case was selected for limited scrutiny due to large value transactions and sale of equity without offering capital gains. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition of Rs. 7,47,844/- for undisclosed short-term capital gain and jobbing income.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO was justified without proper verification and opportunity to the assessee to produce evidence. Whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 271B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

Hearing: 18.08.2022Pronounced: 21.09.2022

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), Rohtak, dated 27.6.2019, pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1.

That, the order of the ITO Ward-5, Rohtak is bad in law and facts and liable to be quashed.

2.

That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ITO Ward-5, Rohtak erred in making an addition of Rs. 7,47,844/- merely on the suspicion/doubt or surmise basis.

Raj Singh Malik Vs. ITO 3. That the AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. That the AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271B of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 5. That, the appellant craves leave to add, alter amend any above grounds of appeal before the Hon’ble power.”

2. Facts giving rise to the present appeal are that in this case return of income was filed on 24.8.2015 declaring an income of Rs. 6,36,260/-. Subsequently, the case was selected for limited scrutiny to examine the issue of large value transactions, sale of equity with delivery reported in security transaction tax return and no capital gain offered for taxation in ITR. In response to the statutory notice, the authorized representative of the assessee attended the proceedings. It is noticed that the assessee was required to furnish information relating to sale and purchase of shares in response to the questionnaire dated 30.10.2017, but the assessee furnished information of a single party namely M/s Paras Ram Holdings Pvt. Ltd. as per which the assessee had shown short term capital gain of Rs. 4,74,321/- and jobing income amounting to Rs. 2,73,523/-, but the same had not been disclosed in the return of income. Hence the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 7,47,844/-, thereby assessing the income at Rs. 13,84,100/- against the declared income of Rs. 6,36,260/-. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(Appeals), who after considering the submissions dismissed the appeal.

Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal.

Raj Singh Malik Vs. ITO 3. The assessee has filed an application seeking condonation of delay in filing of appeal of 225 days. It is stated that the impugned order dated 27.6.2019 was not received by the assessee. Subsequently, the order was received on 05.03.2021 and appeal was filed on 16.04.2021. It is stated that the delay is neither deliberate nor the assessee has taken undue advantage of filing of the present appeal after expiry of the prescribed time. It is further submitted that the assessee is retired from the Higher Education Department of Government of Haryana and is a senior citizen who derives his income from pension and interest from banks. It is submitted that no prejudice would be caused to the revenue if the prayer of condonation of delay is allowed.

4.

Learned Sr. DR opposed the submissions and submitted that the assessee has not pointed out any reasonable cause for approaching late to the Tribunal.

5.

I have heard learned authorized representatives of the parties and perused the material on record. The assessee has stated that he did not receive the impugned order The assessee is a senior citizen, retired from a government job and has stated that he has no other source of income except pension and interest from banks. The case of the assessee was taken up for limited scrutiny to examine the issue of large value transactions. It is observed that certain gains from the transactions were not declared by the assessee. However, the Revenue has not pointed out what prejudice

Raj Singh Malik Vs. ITO would be caused if the delay is condoned and the appeal is taken up for hearing on merits. I, therefore, following the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition vs. Mst. Katiji (1987) 167 ITR 471 (SC), condone the delay in filing of the appeal before the Tribunal and the appeal is taken up for hearing on merits.

6.

The assessee has filed an application for production of additional evidence.

Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that these evidences would prove that the addition made by the Assessing officer is not justified. It is stated that documents were not available at the time of proceedings before the authorities below.

7.

Learned Sr. DR opposed the orders of the authorities below and submitted that the assessee was given sufficient opportunity to furnish evidences to prove the transactions.

8.

I have heard learned representatives of the parties. The Assessing Officer has made addition in respect of certain transactions carried out by the assessee through M/s Paras Ram Holdings Pvt. Ltd. and jobing income that require to be verified by the Assessing Officer. The contention of the assessee is that the documents now sought to be filed in support of its claim could not be filed before the authorities below as the same were not available at that time. Therefore, in Raj Singh Malik Vs. ITO order to sub-serve the principles of natural justice, it is deemed fit and proper to set aside the orders of the authorities below on the issue in question and restore the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer for decision afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee, after taking into account the evidence that is produced now in support of his claim. The grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose only.

9.

Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 21st Sept. 2022.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →