SH. DHEERAJ SETH,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3662/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 November 2018AY 2008-095 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention that improper presentation before lower authorities led to injustice. Therefore, the case was restored to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed, leading to additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A). The assessee's counsel cited issues with representation and health conditions as reasons for improper presentation before the lower authorities.

What were the issues?

Whether the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) was justified and whether provisions of Section 68 and 41(1) were correctly applied to the unexplained trade creditors.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 41(1)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA

For Appellant: Ms. Gunjan Jain, CA
For Respondent: Ms. Aashna Paul, Sr. DR
Hearing: 05/11/2018Pronounced: 06/11/2018

ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A)-22, New Delhi dated 24.02.2014 pertaining to A. Y. 2008-09.

2. The grievance of the assessee read :-

“1. That it be held that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in dismissing the appeal.

2.

That it be held that the both the provisions of section 68 and 41 (10 have no application in the case of the Appellant.

3. That it be held that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the additions of Rs.22,52,972/- made by the A.O. in respect of unexplained trade creditors.

4. That it be held that the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the additions made by the A.O on account of difference of Rs.90,000/- in balances of the trade creditors.

5. That the case of the appellant be restored back to the file of the A. O. to determine application of section 41 (1) in respect of unexplained creditors and to allow adequate opportunity to the Appellant of being heard.”

3.

At the very outset the counsel for the assessee stated that due to issue between the counsel and subsequent health conditions of one B.L. Sahni representing assessees case neither the assessment proceedings could be attended properly nor the proceedings before CIT(A) was presented properly. It is the say of the counsel that due to improper presentation of the facts before the lower authorities the additions have been made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) which has resulted into gross in justice to the appellant.

4.

I have carefully gone through the assessment order and the order of the first appellate authority. I find force in the contention of the Ld. Counsel, if the proceedings before lower authorities were attended properly the result would have been somewhat different, therefore, in the interest of justice and fair play I restore this issue to the files of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer is directed to decide the issues afresh after giving a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in the open court on 06.11.2018.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →