AJAY KUMAR MAURYA,GHAZIABAD vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 1, GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3834/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 March 2022AY 2009-105 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) should not have rejected documentary evidence on technical grounds. The matter was restored to the AO for fresh examination after the assessee furnished necessary evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenged the assessment order, including the validity of jurisdiction and additions made. The assessee did not press grounds related to jurisdiction.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence and whether the additions made by the AO were justified based on the evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. A.D. JAIN & SH. N. K. BILLAIYA

For Respondent: Ms. Alka Gautam, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15/03/2022Pronounced: 15/03/2022

This appeal filed by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Ghaziabad dated 28.02.2018 pertaining to A.Y.2009-10.

2.

Ground No.1, 2 and 3 challenge the validity of the assessment by assumption of jurisdiction u/s. 148/147 of the Act. Ground No.4 relates to the rejection of the additional evidences by the CIT(A). Ground No.5, 6 and 7 are on the merits of the additions.

3.

Representatives of both the sides were heard at length.

Case records carefully perused.

4.

At the very outset the counsel for the assessee stated that he is not pressing ground 1, 2 and 3, therefore, the same are dismissed as not pressed.

5.

Coming to the merits of the addition the counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the addition of Rs.917650/- was made by the AO by rejecting the evidences in summary manner.

It is the say of the Counsel that those evidences alongwith other evidences were furnished before the CIT(A) but the CIT(A) declined to entertain the additional evidences.

6.

On the addition of Rs.388570/-the counsel stated that the same has been made on account of difference in the income shown in form No.26AS and the income shown by the assessee in his return of income. It is the say of the counsel that the difference arose because certain income did not accrue to the assessee during the year under consideration.

7.

The counsel prayed for another opportunity so that the assessee can file necessary documentary evidences.

8.

Per contra the DR strongly supported the orders of the authorities below.

9.

Having heard the rival contentions we are of the considered view that documentary evidences should not have been rejected by the CIT(A) on technical grounds. Therefore, in the cause of justice we restore the entire quarrel to the files of the AO. The assessee is directed to furnish necessary documentary evidences relating to the long term capital gain. The assessee is further directed to reconcile the difference of income in his return viz-a- viz Form N.26 AS. The AO is directed to examine the same and decide the issue afresh after affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

10.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in part for statistical purposes.

11.

The order is pronounced in the open court on 15.03.2022 in the presence of both the parties.

More judgments on Section 148

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →