RAVI KUMAR VERMA,UTTAR PRADESH vs. ACIT, MEWAT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2119/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 August 2021AY 2012-134 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to produce parties for verification and that confirmations were not properly verified. Therefore, the matter was remanded to the AO for proper adjudication.

What were the facts?

The assessee's return of income was assessed by the AO who made disallowance of expenses and an addition on account of unexplained cash credit under Section 68. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO under Section 68 for unexplained cash credit was justified, considering the assessee's inability to produce parties and verify documents.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R. K. PANDA & MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE

Hearing: 09.08.2021Pronounced: 31.08.2021

ORDER

PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

1.

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 04/02/2016 passed by CIT(A)-Meerut for assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. “That the learned assessing officer erred in law fact by disallowance Rs. 575610/- without any basis. Hence disallowance of Rs. arbitrary very very excessive, ought to be deleted.

2. That the learned assessing officer erred in law & fact by a 7310640/- to the income of the assessee u/s 68. while the assessee main condition i.e. identity, creditworthiness. genuineness of addition of Rs. 7310640/- u/s 68 uncalled for arbitrary very be deleted.

3. That learned assessing officer -erred in law & fact by ad 7310640/- to the income of the assessee while assessee has explanation, which was rejected summarily. Hence addition of Rs.73,10,640/- is uncalled for arbitrary, very very excessive, ought to be deleted.

4. That learned assessing officer erred in law & fact by 3,10,640/- to the income of the assessee, which was already shown to the income of the assessee, while assess has furnish all evidences explanation which was rejected summarily. Hence addition of Rs. 3,10,640/- is uncalled for arbitrary very very excessive, ought to be deleted.

3. The assessee has received interest income from partnership firm being a sleeping partner and other income from different firms. The assessee filed return of income at Rs.11,54,450/- on 21/09/2012. The Assessing Officer made disallowance of expenses at Rs. 5,75,610/- and also made addition on account of unexplained cash credit u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, amounting to Rs.73,10,640/-.

4.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5.

At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that Ground No. 1 is not pressed, hence Ground No. 1 is dismissed.

6. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in law & fact by making addition of Rs. 73,10,640/- to the income of the assessee u/s 68 of the Act, while the assessee’s main contention i.e. identity, creditworthiness, genuineness of addition of Rs. 73,10,640/- u/s 68 uncalled for, arbitrary and the same may be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the assessee’s and the evidences were rejected summarily by the Assessing Officer. Hence addition of Rs.73,10,640/- is uncalled for, arbitrary, excessive and the same ought to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Assessing Officer erred in law & fact by making addition of Rs. 3,10,640/- to the income of the assessee, which was already shown by the assessee in his return of income and furnished all evidences explanation which was rejected summarily by the Assessing Officer. Hence addition of Rs. 310640/- is uncalled for, arbitrary as well as excessive, and the same ought to be deleted.

6.

The Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order and the order of the CIT(A).

7.

We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee could not produce the parties before the Assessing Officer. In fact the confirmations filed before the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) have also not been properly verified in consonance with the documents available on record. Therefore, it will be appropriate to remand back this entire issue from Ground No. 2 to 4 to the file of the Assessing Officer for proper adjudication and we direct the assessee to produce the presence of the parties from whom the assessee has taken the said amount and explain the creditworthiness, genuineness of the transactions before the Assessing Officer. Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →