KANWAL JEET SINGH,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, WARD-1(4), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 5311/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 February 2019AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal set aside the disputed issues to the AO for fresh adjudication. The assessee was directed to produce the donor before the AO, who was instructed to consider all evidence and provide a fair hearing.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal was against an addition confirmed by the CIT(A). The addition was made due to the non-production of the donor, Smt. Lokesh Kumari, despite the assessee submitting various documents to prove the transaction's genuineness.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made on account of non-production of the donor was justified, and if the evidence submitted by the assessee was adequately considered by the lower authorities.

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 This appeal is filed by assessee against the Order dated 28.5.2018 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Faridabad relating to Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

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

3.

During the hearing, Ld. counsel for the assessee has stated that the addition in dispute has been made by the AO and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) was only on account of non-production of Donor Smt.

Lokesh Kumari. However, the assessee’s counsel has submitted all the evidences were filed before the lower authorities i.e. Return of Income and computation; copy of notice u/s. 148 and reasons recorded by the AO; copies of land acquisition documents; copy of bank statement of assessee; copy of PAN card, Aadhar Card, Gift Deed, duly sworn affidavit and Bank statement of Mrs. Lokesh Kumari (Donor) to prove the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction, but the same was not considered properly. Hence, he requested to delete the addition in dispute and allow the appeal of the assessee.

4.

Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

5.

I have heard both the parties and perused the records. During the hearing, the Bench asked the assessee’s counsel whether the assessee will produce the donor before the AO or not? The assessee’s counsel agreed to produce the donor Mrs. Lokesh Kumari before the AO for substantiating his claim. Ld. DR has not raised any serious objection to this proposition. Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the acceptance of the Ld. counsel for the assessee to produce the Donor Smt. Lokesh Kumari before the AO to substantiate his claim and in the interest of justice, I set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO to decide the same afresh, in accordance with law and after considering all the documentary evidences filed by the assessee and give adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Assessee is also directed through his counsel to appear before the Assessing Officer on 25.02.2019 at 10.00 AM alongwith the Donor, Smt. Lokesh Kumari to substantiate his case and fully cooperate with the AO in the proceedings and did not take any unnecessary adjournment and file all the documentary evidences. There is no need to issue separate notice for hearing.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →