MADHU JAIN,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD 29(3), NEW DELHI

PDF

ITA 3738/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 January 2024AY 2014-15Bench: the Assessing Officer as well as before the Id. CIT(A). Such attitude of the assessee is highly undesirable. Further, the assessee has also filed additional evidences. Hence, keeping in view facts, we remand the matter to Assessing Officer to complete the assessment proceeding afresh. Revenue would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings as deemed fit, in case of non compliance to the notices issued by the Authorities.5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statist3 pages

AI SummaryAllowed for statistical purpose

Facts

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order, which had rejected additional evidence filed under Rule 46A and confirmed various additions including sale proceeds of shares (Rs. 13,07,200/-), unsecured loans (Rs. 45,00,000/-), and unexplained expenditure (Rs. 1,35,61,024/-). The tribunal noted the assessee's non-compliance with both the Assessing Officer and CIT(A).

Held

Considering the assessee's non-compliance and the submission of additional evidence, the Tribunal remanded the case to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. The Revenue was granted liberty to initiate penalty proceedings if there was non-compliance with notices from the authorities.

Key Issues

1. Rejection of additional evidence by CIT(A) under Rule 46A. 2. Confirmation of additions related to share sale proceeds, unsecured loans, and unexplained expenditure without addressing merits. 3. Assessee's non-compliance with tax authorities.

Sections Cited

Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘E’, NEW DELHI

Before: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr. B. R. R. Kumar

Hearing: 19.01.2024Pronounced: 23.01.2024

ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar:- The present appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of ld. NFAC/CIT(A), New Delhi dated 18.12.2023. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad both in eyes of law and on facts.

2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in rejecting the additional evidence filed under rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962.

3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not given any finding on the merits of the case.

4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the additions on account of sale proceeds of shares amounting to Rs. 13,07,200/

5. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the additions on account of Unsecured Loans amounting to Rs. 45,00,000/-.

6. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts by confirming the additions on account of Unexplained Expenditure amounting to Rs. 1,35,61,024/-.”

Heard the arguments of both the parties and perused the material available on record.

We find that, the assessee has not complied before the Assessing Officer as well as before the ld. CIT(A). Such attitude of the assessee is highly undesirable. Further, the assessee has also filed additional evidences. Hence, keeping in view facts, we remand the matter to Assessing Officer to complete the assessment proceeding afresh. Revenue would be at liberty to initiate penalty proceedings as deemed fit, in case of non compliance to the notices issued by the Authorities.