ASTRAL CAPITALS PRIVATE LIMITED,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD-3(3), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4722/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 February 2020AY 2010-114 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order without providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the ITAT was against the CIT(A)'s order dismissing their appeal. The assessee contended that the reopening of assessment and subsequent addition were illegal and that they had discharged their onus regarding the source of investment.

What were the issues?

Whether the reopening of assessment was valid and whether the addition made under Section 69 was justified when the investment was recorded in the books of accounts. The primary issue was the denial of a proper opportunity of being heard by the lower appellate authority.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 69,Section 133(6)

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 ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Shri Arun Kishore, CA

This appeal is filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals-1], New Delhi dated 26.3.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

1. (i) That the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal I (hereinafter called CIT (A) dismissing the appeal is illegal, unjust, opposed to facts and suffers from the vice of arbitrariness. (ii) That each ground of appeal is an independent ground, without prejudice to each other.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of CIT (A) and the order of Ld. AO are both bad in the eyes of law, since issue of notice uls 148 is illegal- the return filed not carefully scrutinized before reopening and case reopened by wrong application of explanation 2(b) of section 147, and no satisfaction recorded other than reliance on information from JCIT Indore.

3. (i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the CIT (A) has erred in holding the contentions of the Ld. AO, who has wrongly relied upon the case at 79 taxmann.com 117 (SC) (ii) That the case law relied upon by the Ld. AO is not applicable since the facts of the instant case are entirely different.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the orders of the CIT (A) and Ld. AO upholding and making an addition of Rs. 37,00,000/- is illegal, since the appellant has discharged the onus of providing the source of investment, identity and credit worthiness of the depositor. No addition is called for. 5. i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. AO and confirmation by CIT (A) are both bad in law as no addition in the instant case is called for u/s 69 of The IT Act. (ii) That no addition uls 69 of The Act can be made, when the investment of Rs. 37,00,000/- was found recorded in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee. (iii) That second limb of section 69 is only attracted when the investment is not recorded in the books of accounts.

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order of the Ld. AO and Ld. CIT (A) are both

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →