CHANDER PRAKASH NARA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, WARD-34(5), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4485/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 November 2017AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer was not correct in making the additions and the CIT(A) was not justified in confirming them. The matter was set aside to the Assessing Officer for de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer disallowed a loan of Rs. 1,28,000 and an addition to capital of Rs. 6,32,003 for lack of details regarding source, creditor's ITR, and confirmation. The CIT(A) confirmed these disallowances.

What were the issues?

Whether the disallowance of loan and addition to capital were justified without proper evidence and opportunity for the assessee to furnish details.

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 ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN

Hearing: 27.11.2017Pronounced: 29.11.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [A.Y. 2012-13] Shri Chander Prakash Nara Vs. The I.T.O 682, Gali Laddu Wali Ward 34(5) Nehru Kutia, Malka Ganj, New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAPPC 5193 M [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 27.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 29.11.2017 Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Atiq Ahmed Sr. DR ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A)- 12, New Delhi vide order dated 30.03.2017 for A.Y. 2012-13.

2.

The assessee has raised as many as 8 grounds of appeal comprising of solitary issue being Ground No. 4, which reads as under:

“4. The assessing Authority during eth course of assessment proceedings asks the appellant to furnish the details loans from Savitri Devi Nara Rs. 1,28,000/- and amount introduced in capital Rs. 6,32,003/-”.

3.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, I proceed to decide the appeal after hearing the ld. DR and perusing the relevant material on record.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made disallowance of loan amounting to Rs. 1,28,000/- and disallowance of amount of Rs. 6,32,003/- was also made as regards the addition in the capital account which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A).

4.

I have heard the ld. DR and perused the relevant material on record. The allegation of the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) was that the assessee has not given the details of source, ITR of the creditor, no confirmation has been received and the credit worthiness and genuineness of the transaction has not been established with regard to the loan of Rs. 1,28,000/-. With regard to the disallowance of Rs. 6,32,003/- as addition in the capital account, the assessee was asked to furnish the source of the addition but no evidence in this regard was submitted. It was submitted that the amount has been transferred from Vinod Industries. The assessee has not submitted copy of bank account to show that the amount had been received from Vinod Industries. In these circumstances and facts of the case, the additions have been made for non submission of certain accounts, though explanation has been placed on record and the Assessing Officer was not correct in making the addition and the ld. CIT(A) were not justified in confirming the same. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter is set aside to the file of the Assessing Officer, who will decide the case de novo after affording adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Thus, ground No. 4 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 29.11.2017.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →