JALAJ SHRIVASTAVA,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT, CIRCLE- 64(1), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5157/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 November 2019AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's submission that proper opportunity was not given. Therefore, the issues were set aside to the AO for fresh consideration with adequate opportunity to the assessee to present evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee, an IAS Officer, appealed additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) on account of unexplained credit entries for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. The assessee contended that proper opportunity was not provided to substantiate claims.

What were the issues?

Whether the additions on account of unexplained credit entries were justified without providing proper opportunity to the assessee to substantiate their case.

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: ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU

ORDER These appeals are filed by the assessee against the respective Orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-21, New Delhi relating to Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13 on the following grounds.

GROUNDS RAISED IN (AY 2011-12)

1.

Because in any view the addition made by the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) of Rs. 5,01,000/- on account of unexplained credit entries is highly unjust, without proper opportunity, wrong, illegal and against the facts and law of the case.

2.

Because in any view, and without prejudice to above grounds, addition made, interest charged and the Assessment order passed are wrong, illegal, without proper opportunity, bad in law and against the law facts and law of the case. 3. Because the appellant craves leave to add or alter, any or more ground of grounds of appeal, at the time of hearing of appeal. GROUNDS RAISED IN (AY 2012-13)

1. Because in any view the addition made by the AO and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) of Rs. 52,723/- on account of unexplained credit entries is highly unjust, without proper opportunity, wrong, illegal and against the facts and law of the case.

2. Because in any view the addition made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) of Rs. 7,16,517/- on account of unexplained credit

entries is highly unjust, without proper opportunity, wrong, illegal and against the facts and law of the case. 3. Because in any view, and without prejudice to the above grounds, addition made, interest charged and the Assessment order passed are wrong, illegal, without proper opportunity, bad in law and against the facts and law of the case. 4. Because the appellant craves leave to add or alter, any or more ground of grounds of appeal

, at the time of hearing of appeal.

2. Since the grounds of appeal raised in both these appeals are similar and identical, hence, we have heard both the appeals together which are being disposed of by this common order for the sake of convenience, by dealing with (AY 2011-12) and the result thereof will apply mutatis mutandis to other appeal being (AY 2012-13).

3.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

4.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated that Assessee, Sh. Jalaj Shrivastava is an IAS Officer, working on the post of Additional Secretary in the Government of India and posted in Delhi. Assessee’s counsel requested that AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) has not given proper opportunity to the assessee for substantiating his claim. He further stated that assessee is having all the evidences for substantiating his claim, if this Bench give an opportunity to the assessee to produce the same before the AO and also requested to set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

Ld. DR has not raised any objection on the request of the ld. Counsel for the assessee.

6.

I have heard both the parties and perused the orders of the revenue authorities. I find considerable cogency in the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that assessee is having all the documentary evidences, but Assessing Officer and Ld. CIT(A) have not given proper opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the issues in dispute are set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee and also examine all the evidences/documents to be filed by the Assessee to substantiate his case. Assessee is also directed through his counsel to fully cooperate with the Assessing Officer in the proceedings and did not take any unnecessary adjournment with the liberty to file any evidence before the AO to substantiate his case. In the result, the (AY 2011-12) stands allowed for statistical purposes.

6.1 Following the consistent view as taken in assessment year 20011- 12 as aforesaid, the issues involved in assessment year 2012-13 are also set aside to the file of the AO with the similar directions, as aforesaid. Accordingly, the (AY 2012-13) stands allowed for statistical purposes.

7.

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 06/11/2019.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →