What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the claim related to cash deposited in the bank under the Presumptive Taxation Scheme. For the issue of unexplained purchases, the matter was restored to the Assessing Officer for fresh consideration of the assessee's explanation.

The assessee claimed cash deposits and purchases, but the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) made additions. The assessee is in appeal against these additions.

What were the issues?

Rejection of claim for source of cash deposits and sustenance of addition for unexplained purchases.

Sh. Mukha Singh, Karnal vs ITO | ITAT Delhi 2017

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH,

Before: SHRI B.P. JAIN

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Wadhwa, CA

Hearing: 10.10.2017Pronounced: 16.10.2017

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘SMC’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [A.Y. 2011-12] Shri Dinesh Kumar Vs. The I.T.O C/o M/s Bhati Wadhwa & Co. Ward II(3) S/o Shri Tej Pal, H. No. 1848, Faridabad HUDA Sector, Palwal, Haryana PAN : AHXPD 3395 F [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 10.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 16.10.2017 Assessee by : Shri Jitender Wadhwa, CA Revenue by : Shri T. Vasanthan Sr. DR ORDER This appeal of the assessee arises from the order of the ld. CIT(A), Faridabad vide order dated 22.11.2016 for A.Y. 2011-12.

The assessee has raised basically the following grounds of appeal: “That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT(A) Faridabad erred in: “a) Rejecting the claim of the appellant for source of cash deposited in bank to the extent of Rs. 7,26,853/- out of the cash received against sale of the material.

b) That on the facts and circumstances of the case as well as in law, the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in sustaining the addition at Rs. 7,62,157/- in as much as source of purchase.”

Brief facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer made the additions on account of money deposited in bank at Rs. 16,99,320/- and Rs. 15,25,192/- apart from the unexplained purchases of Rs. 87,62,157/- which was confirmed by the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), in fact, confirmed the deposit in bank to the extent of Rs. 7,26,853/- and purchases of Rs. 7,62,157/-, against which the assessee is in appeal before me.

I have heard the rival submissions and have perused the relevant material on record. It is evident from the assessment order page 1 that the assessee is filing return under Presumptive Taxation Scheme Accordingly, the first ground listed as Ground No. 4 is allowed.

Apropos the next issue listed as Ground No. 5, the assessee submitted that explanation was given before the Assessing Officer and the ld. CIT(A) which was neither considered by the Assessing Officer nor the ld. CIT(A) and therefore, the matter may be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the explanation and decide the case de novo, which was fairly conceded to by the ld. DR. In such facts and circumstances of the case, I set aside the file of the Assessing Officer to consider the explanation of the assessee which was put forth earlier or any other explanation which shall be submitted at the time of fresh hearing, of course, needless to add that the assessee shall be provided adequate opportunity of being heard. This ground is allowed for statistical purposes

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in is partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order is pronounced in the open court on 16.10.2017.

SH. MUKHA SINGH,KARNAL vs. ITO, KARNAL

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments