SHRI BHIM PAL DAGAR,FARIDABAD vs. ITO, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 368/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 June 2017AY 2012-133 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) passed a non-speaking order and rejected submissions on technical grounds. Therefore, the case was set aside to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision after providing adequate opportunity and considering all evidence.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal challenges the CIT(A)'s confirmation of the AO's disallowance of expenses and addition to capital account. The assessee argued that the CIT(A) did not provide sufficient opportunity and requested the case be remanded.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred by not providing sufficient opportunity to the assessee and passing a non-speaking order. The validity of additions made by the AO and confirmed by the CIT(A) without proper consideration of evidence.

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, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H.S. SIDHU

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay Chandak, CA & Sh

This appeal is filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], Faridabad dated 20.01.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2012-13 on the following grounds:- 1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO in disallowing 1/5th of all expenses debited in the audited profit and loss account for the year ending 31.3.2012 by confirming the suo moto addition of amounting to Rs. 293670/- without considering the fact that the accounts are duly audited by CA and AO does not have any justification and material on records to make such addition to the income.

2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of AO making addition of Rs. 1300600/- in the capital account of the appellant as the unexplained income under section 68 of the Act by rejecting the affidavit filed by appellant on the ground that the same was not duly notorised and the amount of gift received from relatives is not in round figure.

3.

That the appellant craves the leave to add, amend, modify, delete any of the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →