Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI M BALAGANESH & SHRI VIMAL KUMAR
PER VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:
The appeal filed by the assessee is against order dated 30.07.2024 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) , Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)") under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of assessment order dated 12.03.2021 passed by Learned Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi ( (hereinafter referred to as " Ld. Assessing Officer”) under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3A) and 143(3B) of the Act for assessment year 2018-19.
Brief facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 18.09.2019 declaring income of Rs.81,20,880/-. Notices under Sections 143(2) and 143(1) of the Act were issued. The assessee furnished information. On completion of proceedings, Ld. AO vide order dated 12.03.2021 made addition of Rs.11,05,738/-.
Against order dated 12.03.2021 of Ld. AO, the appellant/assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A) which was dismissed vide order dated 30.07.2021.
Being aggrieved, appellant/assessee preferred present appeal with following grounds of appeal. “1. The order of the Honorable CIT(A) is bad in law and against the facts placed on the file.
2. The Honorable CIT(A) has erred in law in rejecting the appeal being late on the ground that it is not maintainable. However, he has wrongly observed in Para 6.9. In the Para 6.9 the Honorable CIT (A) has observed that the appeal has been disposed off on merits and based on information/documents available on records.
3. The Honorable CIT(A) has erred in not considering the submissions of the assessee although he was kind enough to reproduce the complete submissions in his order.
4. The assessee requests the Honorable Court to consider and decide the case on merit after considering the grounds of appeal taken before the Honorable CIT(A) but not considered by him. a) That the learned AO erred in adding the closing stock of crypto currency in income of the assessee. He erred in ignoring the fact that 31.08.2018 has been carried forward and has been sold in AY 2019-20. b) That the learned AO has not pointed out any mistake in the order and has not rejected books of accounts of the assessee. It is pertinent to mention here that accounts of the assessee are duly audited. c) The learned AO erred in adding closing stock of AY 2018-19 by ignoring the fact that all the transactions were carried out through banking channels and there is no difference in balance of bank account as appearing in books of accounts and balance as per Bank statement. d) The learned AO erred in ignoring the fact that out of gross profit of Rs. 81,64,349.51, assessee had claimed expenses of Rs. 5738.20 only and has declared net profit of Rs.81,58,611.31. e) The learned AO erred in ignoring the basic principle that no income can be taxed twice. Due to adding up the value of closing stock in the income of AY 2018-19, the opening stock of AY 2019-20 has become Zero and out of income of AY 2019-2020, we will have to reduce the value of opening stock of 11,05,738.00 from the sales of AY 2019-2020 which will result in Net loss of Rs. 7,61,905.00 (11,05,738.00-Net profit 3,43,833.00).
The assessee craves to add, alter, amend any of the grounds of appeal
before the appeal is heard or finally disposed off.”
5. Learned Authorized Representative for the appellant/assessed, submitted that Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal being barred by time and on merits. In fact, Ld. CIT(A) vide notice dated 25.07.2024 had provided time for filing written submissions on or before 01.08.2024 but dismissed the appeal one day before the notified date.
6. Learned authorized Representative for the Revenue relied on impugned order.