VIJAY MEHTA HUF,HARYANA vs. ITO, KARNAL
Facts
The assessment was completed under Section 144, leading to an addition of Rs.4,37,81,889/- under Section 69 for unexplained investments. The CIT(A) partly sustained the addition at Rs.75,00,000/-. The assessee appealed, arguing that the CIT(A) erred in the estimation and overlooked crucial remand reports from the Assessing Officer.
Held
The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had failed to consider a significant remand report dated 22/27.09.2016 and the assessee's rejoinder. With no objection from either party, the matter was restored to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) is directed to consider the overlooked remand report and provide the assessee with an adequate opportunity of being heard.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in sustaining an addition of Rs.75,00,000/- as unexplained investment without considering the Assessing Officer's remand report and whether such estimation was arbitrary.
Sections Cited
Section 144 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961, Section 69 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE- & SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘G’ NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No.3165/Del/2017 Assessment Year: 2009-10
Vijay Mehta, HUF, Vs. ITO, Ward 4, 17-Shakti Colony, Karnal Karnal PAN :AABHV2130B (Appellant) (Respondent)
Assessee by Shri Rakesh Jain, Adv. Department by Shri HK Choudhary, CIT-DR
Date of hearing 02.11.2023 Date of pronouncement 30.01.2024
ORDER PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the
learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Karnal dated
16.03.2017 for the assessment year 2009-10. The assessee raised the
following grounds:
2 ITA No.3852/Del/2019
That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(Appeals) has erred in estimating the initial investment in Mutual Funds @ Rs.75,00,000/- and treating the same as Unexplained income of the assessee ignoring the vital fact that all transactions and investments stood properly explained and duly examined, verified and acknowledged by the A.O in his various remand reports submitted before the Ld. CIT(Appeals). 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the estimated addition of Rs.75,00,000 to the returned income of Rs.1,42,396/- of the assessee is arbitrary, unwarranted and deserves to be deleted. 3. That the Appellant craves to add, amend or delete any ground(s) of appeal before or during the hearing of the appeal.
The learned counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted
that the assessment was completed under Section 144 of the Income-
Tax Act,1961 by making an addition of Rs.4,37,81,889/- under
Section 69 of the Income-Tax Act,1961 treating the investment made
in mutual funds and deposits in HDFC Bank. The learned counsel
submits that in the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee
produced various evidences in the form of additional evidences and
the learned CIT (Appeals) has called for several remand reports and
decided the appeal of the assessee sustaining addition partly at
Rs.75,00,000/-. The learned counsel submits that there is no basis for
3 ITA No.3852/Del/2019
sustaining part addition of Rs.75,00,000/- by the learned CIT
(Appeals).
The learned counsel for the assessee further referring to page
No.165 of the paper books submits that the learned CIT (Appeals)
while deciding the appeal of the assessee did not consider the remand
report dated 22.09.2016 of the Assessing Officer as well as the
rejoinder of the assessee.
On a query from the Bench whether the matter be restored to
the file of the learned CIT (Appeals) for considering the remand report
which was omitted to consider by the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the learned
counsel has no serious objection. Learned Departmental
Representative also expressed no objection.
Considering the submissions of the rival parties, we restore
this appeal to the file of the learned CIT (Appeals) for deciding afresh
in accordance with law after considering the remand report dated
22/27.09.2016 which was inadvertently overlooked while deciding the
appeal. Needless to say, the assessee be provided adequate opportunity
of being heard.
4 ITA No.3852/Del/2019
In the appeal, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for
statistical purposes. Pronounced in the open court on 30.01.2024.
( G.S. PANNU ) (CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD) VICE-PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 30th January, 2024 Mohan Lal
