ITO, NEW DELHI vs. HARPREET SINGH, NEW DELHI

PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER The present appeal has been filed by the revenue against order dated 04.02.2016 passed by Ld. CIT (A)-19, New Delhi for assessment year 2011-12 on the following grounds of appeal:

1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is bad in law and not in consonance with facts of the case.

3. On the facts and circumstances in the case, the Ld.CIT(A) neither called for remand report nor provided opportunity to the AO before accepting the additional evidences under rule 46A and thus granting relief to the assesse.

4. On the facts and circumstances in the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in accepting the additional evidences under rule 46A and thus granting relief to the assessee. In this case reliance is placed on the case of CIT vs. Manish Buildwell Pvt.Ltd. of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court.

5. The appellant craves leave to add, allow or amend any or all the ground of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

2. Brief facts of the case are as under: Assessee filed its return of income on 30/03/12 declaring a total income of Rs. 1,55,280/-. The return was processed under section 143(1). However since nobody appeared before the Ld. AO assessment was completed by making addition of Rs.60,00,000/-. 2.1. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. AO assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT (A), and filed various details. Bank statements filed by assessee, revealed that assessee had taken loan of Rs.47,25,000/-from Punjab and Sindh Bank. He therefore reduced the addition to an extent of Rs.47,25,000/-. However Ld.CIT(A) held that investment of Rs.16,35,000/-remained unexplained. Further assessee had submitted that sum of Rs.6,00,000/- was Page 2 of 6 ITA 1792/Del/2016 Assessment Year 2011-12 Sh. Harpreet Singh received as compensation from railways on the death of his father and as assessee had not produced any documents/copy of the bank statement to show that the cheque was received and the money was withdrawn there from for balance payment of flat in cash and the same was further held as unsubstantiated. Assessee submitted before Ld. CIT (A) that he sold gold held by his wife, and had received some amount from Muthoot Group, amounting to Rs.2,90,000/-. It has further been recorded by Ld. CIT (A) that the assessee failed to substantiate the amount received from Smt. Jaspreet Singh. Ld. CIT (A) thereby confirmed the addition of Rs. 21, 30, 000/-. 2.2. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT (A) the revenue is in appeal before us now.

3. At the outset Ld.AR preferred application for admission of additional evidence under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Rules. It has been submitted that he has filed application to collect evidence as regards release of claims/compensation received from Railway department. Copy of extract of the register of Original Applications maintained by Railway Claims Tribunal has been produced before us. The Ld.AR submitted certain documents from Muthoot Finance being the receipt of gold ornaments offered as collateral security against the loan amount of Rs. 1,28,000/-. 3.1. It has been submitted by Ld.AR that these documents would be necessary to decide the issue of additions and to establish the genuineness of the amounts paid towards purchase of flat by assessee. Page 3 of 6 ITA 1792/Del/2016 Assessment Year 2011-12 Sh. Harpreet Singh 3.2. Ld. DR has not objected in the event the issue is set aside to the authorities below for verification of the same.

by revenue stand allowed for statistical purposes.

6. In the result appeal filed by revenue stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2017.

Sd/- Sd/- (R.S. SYAL) (BEENA A PILLAI) Vice President Judicial Member Dated: 29th November, 2017. *mv ITA 1792/Del/2016 Assessment Year 2011-12 Sh. Harpreet Singh Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. Guard File By Order