MR. RAVINDER KUMAR JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4446/DEL/2012Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 October 2019AY 2006-075 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) had admitted additional evidence, which was a contentious issue. Following the precedent set in similar cases of other family members, the Tribunal decided to set aside the entire issue back to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment.

What were the facts?

A search operation was conducted on the assessee's premises, leading to an assessment order under Section 144. The CIT(A) partly allowed the assessee's appeal, deleting some additions. Both the revenue and the assessee filed appeals against the CIT(A)'s order.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in admitting additional evidence under Rule 46A while deciding the appeal against an ex-parte assessment order. The propriety of setting aside the entire issue for fresh assessment by the AO.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 133A,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA & SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI

For Appellant: Shri M P Rastogi, Adv
For Respondent: Smt Sulekha Verma, CIT DR, Shri M P Rastogi, Adv
Hearing: 12/07/2019Pronounced: 09/10/2019

O R D E R PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, A. M. 1. Assessee has filed appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) –XXXI, New Delhi dated 15/6/2012. The learned assessing officer has also filed appeal against the same order. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in for the Assessment Year 2006-07:- “1. The order of the Ld. CIT (A) is not correct in law and facts.

2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,15,470/- made by the Assessing Officer treating the agricultural income as income from undisclosed sources by admitting additional evidence in contravention of rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962.

3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,26,100/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained cash found during the course of search by admitting additional evidence in contravention of rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962.

4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,84,531/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of short term capital gains on sale of land in urban villages at the outskirts of Delhi by admitting additional evidence in contravention of rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962.

5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. C1T(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,97,63,872/- out of total addition of Rs. 2,06,63,872/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained credit entries in the bank account of the assessee by admitting additional evidence in contravention of rule 46A of Income Tax Rules, 1962.”

3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal in Assessment Year 2006-07:- 1.1 That CIT [A] should have deleted the addition of Rs 7,50,000 made on account of unexplained cash observed during the search operations on 10-11- 1.2 That CIT [A] has erred in not accepting the findings of the CIT [A] where all the cash found with all the members was compared with the total explained cash available with the family and additional income offered to tax by them which has also been upheld by the ITAT. 1.3 Without prejudice to the above ground, the learned CIT [A] has erred in not considering the additional income admitted by the assessee on account of cash discrepancy. 2.1 That the learned CIT [A] has erred in confirming addition of Rs 1,25,000 as alleged payment to Mr. Ali Sher for permitting him to sell his agricultural land in an area where he has no land 2.2 That the learned CIT [A] has erred in not accepting it as a deduction from sale price of the agricultural land sold during the year for determination of capital gain 3.1 That the learned CIT [A] has erred in not deleting the addition of Rsl0,00,000 from deposit side of Bank account received from the second Mr. Ashok Jain which was subsequently confirmed by the creditor- and the mix up is,due there being two persons with the same name 3.2 That the learned CIT [A] has erred in not deleting the addition of Rsl,00,000 received for adjustment of basement rights with other owners of the same property-which only goes to reduce the cost of acquisition 4 That the above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other.”

4.

Brief facts of the case shows that assessee is an individual. The search u/s 132 of the income tax act was carried out on 10th/11/2005 at the residential premises of the assessee at H – 78, South Extension part 1, New Delhi and survey u/s 133A of the income tax act in the business premises of Mrs Bengali sweets, at H – 82, South Extension part 1, New Delhi and G – 19 S. Extension part 1 New Delhi in which the assessee is a partner. During the course of search, certain books of accounts were seized.

5.

The assessee filed his return of income on 31/10/2006 declaring an income of INR 9 50147. In the return of income, the assessee has attached to note regarding additional income of INR 5 885666/– offered for taxation in his hands. According to the note he disclosed certain amount in the hands of various persons of his family and group concern. Assessment u/s 144 of the income tax act was passed by the learned assessing officer on 28/12/2007 determining total income of the assessee at Rs 29197790/– making several additions.

6.

The assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A who partly allowed the appeal of the assessee deleting certain additions and confirming some of them. Such disallowances would be discussed while deciding the grounds of appeal

of parties. Therefore both the parties are in appeal before us.

7. We 1st take up the appeal of the learned assessing officer. The 1st ground of appeal is general in nature and therefore same is dismissed.

8. In all the grounds where the learned CIT – A has deleted the addition the main contention of the revenue is that the learned CIT – A has admitted the additional evidences under section 46A of the income tax act. The conetnetion is that consideration of the additional evidences by the learned CIT – A despite upholding the validity of the ex parte assessment order passed u/s 144 of the income tax act 1961.

9. The learned departmental representative vehemently submitted that when the learned CIT – A has noted that assessing officer has given sufficient opportunity to the assessee before passing the order u/s 144 of the income Page | 3

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →