JATINDER PAL SINGH KANWAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO,WARD-23(1), NEW DELHI
I.T.A.No.482/Del/2024
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH “SMC” NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
आ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.482/Del/2024
िनधा रणवष /Assessment Year: 2003-04
Jatinder Pal Singh Kanwar
E-67, GF, Grater Kailash-1,
New Delhi.
बनाम
Vs.
ITO,
Ward 23(1),
New Delhi.
PAN No.AAAPK4357Q
अपीलाथ Appellant
यथ/Respondent
िनधारतीक ओरसे /Assessee by Shri K.S. Bawa, CA
राजवक ओरसे /Revenue by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
सुनवाईक तारीख/ Date of hearing:
04.07.2024
उोषणाक तारीख/Pronouncement on 03.01.2025
आदेश /O R D E R
This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals)-1, Coimbatore dated 07.12.2023 for the AY
2003-04 in sustaining the ad hoc addition of Rs.1,35,040/-.
2. Brief facts are that the assessment of the assessee for AY
2003-04 was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by issue of notice u/s 148
of the Act. In the course of assessment proceedings though several notices were issued to Assessee there was no compliance by the assessee. Therefore the assessment was completed on 27.12.2006
u/s 144/148 of the Act assessing the income of the assessee at I.T.A.No.482/Del/2024
Rs.18,94,560/-. The Assessing Officer noticed that the assessee is an Executive Director of M/s Raunaq Automotive Components Ltd.
and must have derived salary income of Rs.15 lakhs. The Assessing
Officer also noticed that assessee has been paid Rs.3,94,560/- as salary by M/s Raunaq Automotive Components Ltd. In the absence of submissions of any details, replies, etc. by the assessee the Assessing Officer apart from the salary of Rs.3,94,560/- also considered Rs.15 lakhs on ad hoc basis as income of the assessee.
3. On appeal the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) estimated the income of the assessee at Rs.5,30,000/- for the assessment year under consideration.
4. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing
Officer in the course of assessment proceedings issued summons to the company and obtained Form 16 issued by M/s Raunaq
Automotive Components Ltd. for the AY 2003-04 which is placed at page 17 of the Paper Book. As per this Form 16 the assessee received salary of Rs.3,74,560/- only. However, the Assessing
Officer while completing the assessment presumed that the assessee must have received Rs.15 lakhs being a Director from M/s
Raunaq Automotive Components Ltd. and added Rs.15 lakhs apart from the salary received by the assessee from M/s Raunaq
I.T.A.No.482/Del/2024
Automotive Components Ltd. Ld. Counsel submitted that the Ld.
Addl./JCIT(Appeals), however, estimated the income on assumption that assessee might have received the income during the assessment year under consideration at Rs.5,30,000/- by comparing the income in the return filed by the assessee for the AY 2000-01, wherein the assessee had declared income of Rs.5,24,190/-. Ld.
Counsel submits that except salary income as shown in Form 16 the assessee did not earn any other income and therefore the authorities below are wrong in estimating the income of the assessee completely ignoring Form 16 which was obtained in the course of assessment proceedings from the company namely M/s
Raunaq Automotive Components Ltd. in which the assessee was a Director. The Ld. Counsel, therefore, submits that the income of the assessee should strictly be considered as per Form 16 issued by the company.
5. The DR, on the other hand, placed reliance on the orders of the authorities below.
6. Heard rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below. On perusal of the assessment order, it is noticed that the Assessing Officer though had the information from the company that the assessee had received salary of Rs.3,94,560/- he presumed that I.T.A.No.482/Del/2024
the assessee since comes from a well known family and belongs to Raunaq Singh Group he was under the view that the assessee might have received salary of about 15 lakhs. Accordingly the Assessing
Officer made addition of Rs.15 lakhs. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals), however, estimated the income of the assessee by comparing the return filed by the assessee for the AY 2000-01 wherein the assessee had declared income of Rs.5,24,190/-. The Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) was of the view that the assessee might have received income to an extent of Rs.5,30,000/- when compared to the income declared by the assessee for the AY 2000-01. 7. In my considered view both the authorities below failed to consider the income of the assessee as per Form 16 issued by the company for AY 2003-04 which clearly shows that the assessee was paid an amount of Rs.3,74,560/-. There is no evidence brought on record by the Assessing Officer that the assessee had earned salary more than Rs.3,74,560/- as appearing in Form 16 issued by the company. It is only a guess work made by the Assessing Officer that the assessee might have received Rs.15 lakhs as income from the company for the AY 2003-04. In the absence of any evidence there cannot be any addition based on assumptions. In my view the Assessing Officer having obtained the details from the company by I.T.A.No.482/Del/2024
way of Form 16 and having known that the assessee had received salary of Rs.3,74,560/- only he should not have assessed the income of the assessee at Rs.18,94,560/- by making an ad hoc addition of Rs.15 lakhs. Similarly the Addl./JCIT(Appeals) also went wrong in estimating the income of the assessee on ad hoc basis completely ignoring Form 16 issued by company. Thus, reversing the order of the Addl./JCIT(Appeals), I direct the Assessing Officer to delete the ad hoc addition sustained by the Ld. Addl./JCIT(Appeals) and to consider only Rs.3,94,560/- as income of the assessee as shown in Form 16. Grounds raised by the assessee are allowed.
8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 03/01/2025 (C.N. PRASAD)
JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 03.01.2025
*Kavita Arora, Sr. P.S.
Copy of order sent to- Assessee/AO/Pr. CIT/ CIT (A)/ ITAT
(DR)/Guard file of ITAT.
By order