HYVOLT ELECTRICALS,DELHI vs. ACIT,CIRCLE-55(1), NEW DELHI

1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against order dated 20/05/2017 passed by CIT(A)-19, New Delhi for assessment year 2013-14.

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

That the Learned Assessing Officer has failed to note that U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, books of accounts must of assessee himself and not of any other assessee. In Smt Shanta Devi v. CIT [1998] 171 ITR 532 (P&H), it was held that a perusal of Section 68 would show that the expression books has been used with reference to the word assessee. In other words, such books of account have to be books of the assessee himself and not of any other assessee. Thus books of account of a partnership firm cannot be considered to be the books of account of the partner. Any cash credit shown therein cannot be brought to tax as income under Section 68 in the hands of the partners. 5. That the Learned Assessing Officer has relied only on Bank Pass book of the Partners of the Assesee and not of the Assessee. 6. That the Learned Assessing Officer has failed to note that ank Pass book is not books of account for the purpose of Section 68. In CIT, Poona v. Bhaichand H. Gandhi 141 ITR 67 (Bom.) it was held that the pass book supplied by the bank to the assessee cannot be regarded as the book of the assessee, that is, a book maintained by the assessee or under his instructions. 7. That on the above grounds, the assessee prays for justice not to add Rs.2,27,49,500/- U/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and Rs.27,86,940/- as Interest expense.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite giving notices.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A) as well as the order passed by the Tribunal in Revenue’s appeal in of 2017 order dated 14/7/2021 wherein the order of the CIT(A) is confirmed.

We have heard Ld. DR and perused all the relevant material available on record. It is pertinent to note that from the perusal of the order of the CIT(A) on Page No. 6, the opening balance was not mentioned and the same was not taken into account by the CIT(A). It appears that there is no mention of opening balance in respect of V. K. Mittal, and, therefore, we direct the Assessing Officer to verify the same in regards to the opening balance in consonance with the earlier year’s closing balance. Further, in respect of deposit of Rs. 4,00,000/- in the account of Yogesh K. Mittal, whether the same is actually done or not, has to be verified by the Assessing Officer. Hence, to this extent the order of the CIT(A) is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice.