RUCHI KALIA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD- 40(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3686/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 February 2020AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s order to be ex-parte and non-speaking. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the issues were set aside to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against the CIT(A)'s order sustaining an addition of Rs. 16,22,500/- on account of unexplained cash credit. The assessee contended that the CIT(A) decided the issues without providing a sufficient opportunity to substantiate their claim.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessment proceedings were valid without a notice under Section 143(2) and whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining additions without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 143(2),Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Shri Pramod Jain, CA

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals-14], New Delhi dated 06.11.2018 pertaining to assessment year 2010-11 on the following grounds:-

1. The order passed by the AO and Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and against the facts of the case.

2. That the AO erred in invoking provisions of section 68 of the Act.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition without considering the fact that the AO erred in making the assessment proceedings without issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which makes the whole assessment proceedings null and void.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs. 16,22,500/- on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) and AO erred in passing the order without providing an opportunity of being heard.

6.

That the order of the Ld. AO is based in assumption and presumption which is against the law.

7.

That the AO erred in initiating penalty u/s. 271(1)©. 8. That the AO and Ld. CIT(A) also erred in not following various judgments of jurisdictional High Court and ITAT. 9. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify or delete any of the ground of appeal

2. Prayer On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in view of judicial precedents, it is humbly prayed that:-

1. Order passed u/s. 144/147 be quashed and set aside;

2. Addition of Rs. 16,22,500/- be deleted and 3. Penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)© of the Act be dropped.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →