AVNISH KUMAR YADAV,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

ITA 4480/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 September 2019AY 2012-139 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Ld. CIT(A) had passed a speaking order on merits and provided detailed reasons for its decision. No new material was presented to persuade the Tribunal to differ from the Ld. CIT(A)'s view.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against an addition of Rs. 11,80,448/- made by the Assessing Officer as unexplained income. The assessee contended that the CIB details, which formed the basis of the addition, pertained to a partnership firm and not to the individual assessee.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on the basis of CIB details was erroneous as it pertained to a partnership firm and not the individual assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI H.S.SIDHU & SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA

[A]. This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 22/06/2016 passed by Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)-15, New Delhi [in short, “Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to 2012-13 assessment year.

The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:-

1. “That the order of assessment passed by the Respected Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) u/s 250 is against facts and law of the case. That the Respected CIT(A) has passed order against the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case in making addition of a sum of Rs.11,80,448/- , the detail of this sum is as follows: Nature and description Amount of Addition Our explanation of Addition made Addition is made as 11,80,448.00 Point No.3.0 unexplained Income

ITA No:-4480/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

3.0. As per Individual Transaction Statement (ITS) available on system that cash totaling Rs. 3,03.45.700/- has been deposited in the bank account with Syndicate Bank. Palam Village, New Delhi and the bank has filed CIB details against the PAN of the assessee. The bank has wrongly filed the CIB details against the PAN of the assessee. In actual the CIB details relates to the Partnership Firm Rudra Pharmaceuticals. Thus the addition made on the basis of CIB details is erroneous. Copy of the Ledger of Bank Account of Partnership Firm is attached. Please refer “Annexure -A” also.”

[B]. Vide assessment order dated 30/03/2015 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), income of the assessee was determined at Rs.1,16,24,770/- as per following computation of income:- a) Closing Stock Rs.50,61,355/- b) Unexplained income Rs.60,69,140/- Rs.1,11,30,945/-

Total Income Rs.1,16,24,765/- [C]. The relevant portion of the assessment order is reproduced as under:-

ITA No:-4480/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

[D] Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Vide order dated 22/06/2016, the Ld. CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee’s appeal. The relevant portion of the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under:-

ITA No:-4480/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITA No:-4480/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13) ITA No:-4480/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

[E] This present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 22/06/2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). At the time of hearing, Revenue was represented by Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, the Ld. Departmental Representative (in short ‘Ld. DR’). However, none was present from the assessee’s side. In the absence of any representation from assessee’s side, at the time of hearing before us, we heard the Ld. DR. The Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and the aforesaid impugned order dated 22/06/2016 of the Ld. CIT(A). After perusal of the order of the AO and the aforesaid impugned order dated 22/06/2016 of the Ld. CIT(A), we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed speaking order on merits. Relevant portion of the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) has already been reproduced in foregoing paragraph (D) of this order. We find that the Ld. CIT(A) has given detailed reasons for his decision on merits in the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 22/06/2016 of Ld. CIT(A). During appellate proceedings in Income Tax

ITA No:-4480/Del/2016 (Assessment Year: 2012-13)

Appellate Tribunal (“ITAT”, for short) no material has been brought for our consideration to persuade us to take a view different from the view taken by the Ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order on merit. After hearing the Ld. DR and after perusal of materials on record, and further, in view of the foregoing discussion, we decline to interfere with the aforesaid impugned appellate order dated 22/06/2016 of Ld. CIT(A).

[F] In view of the foregoing discussion, the appeal filed by assessee is dismissed. Before we part; we explicitly clarify that the assessee will be at liberty to approach ITAT for restoration of the appeal in accordance with Proviso to Rule 24 of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal), Rules, 1963. If the assessee does approach ITAT for restoration of the appeals in ITAT, the matter will be considered in accordance with law having regard to the facts and circumstances.

[G] In the result, appeal filed by Assessee is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 03/092019.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →