MANISH MITTAL,DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3691/DEL/2016Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 January 2017AY 2011-124 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the documents submitted by the assessee needed to be examined by the CIT(A) as they were not considered by the lower authorities. Therefore, the case was remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer made an addition based on total deposits treated as turnover, and the CIT(A) enhanced this figure and applied a profit rate. The assessee contended that certain declared income was not deducted and that the CIT(A) enhanced income without a show cause notice.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in enhancing the income without issuing a show cause notice and failing to consider all relevant documents submitted by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-II’ NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU

ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 23.3.2016 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-32, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2011-12 on the following grounds:-

1. That the learned ITO made addition of Rs.5,42,298/- by considering income on total deposit of Rs. 63,41,224/-. He took total deposit as turnover of the business. The CIT (A) enhanced the deposit figure to Rs. 74,45,611/- and by applying 8% rate on this figure of Rs. 74,l45,611/- enhanced the income by Rs. 96,351/-. The CIT (A) did not issue any show cause notice before making enhancement as mentioned in his appeal order on page no. 9 for appearing on 10.02.2016 whereas a separate notice has been issued for appearing on 10.02.2016. Both the officers i.e. ITO as well as CIT has not deducted the figure of Rs. 2,51,2801- which has already been declared by the assessee in his income tax return. The assessee has done

no other business except trading in Coal. The confirmation of addition of Rs. 5,42,298/- and its enhancement by Rs. 96,351/- by the learned CIT is totally wrong, bad in law and needs to be quashed.

2. The order of Learned ITO in making addition of Rs. 35,000/- u/s 69C and its confirmation by the CIT (A) on account of unexplained expenditure is totally wrong, bad in law and needs to be quashed as the income has already been assessed at 8% of turnover.

3.

That the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to one another.

4. That the assessee prays permission to add, delete or amend one or more grounds of appeal.

That the assessee assures unstinted co-operation in all proceedings before your good self.

2.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of brevity.

3. During the course of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed a Paper Book containing pages 1 to 45 containing the Written Submissions filed before the ITAT; Statement of ICICI Bank & Canara Bank; Cash receipt against sale; IT-2 and Computation of Income; letter dated 7.1.2014, Death Certificate, Affidavit and Passport; letter dated 11.12.2013, submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) and letter dated 26.9.2016 to CIT(A) and Notice dated 28.1.2016. He has also verified that the written submissions filed above covers submission before the Ld. CIT(A) and certified that all other papers have been filed before the lower authorities which has not been considered by the lower authorities, hence, he requested the issues involved in the present appeal may be set aside to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.

4.

On the contrary, Ld. DR opposed the request of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee and relied upon the orders of the authorities below. .

5.

I heard both the parties and perused the records. I have gone through the order passed by the revenue authorities especially the impugned order as well as the Paper Book containing 1 to 45 pages having the copy of Written Submissions filed before the ITAT; Statement of ICICI Bank & Canara Bank; Cash receipt against sale; IT-2 and Computation of Income; letter dated 7.1.2014, Death Certificate, Affidavit and Passport; letter dated 11.12.2013, submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) and letter dated 26.9.2016 to CIT(A) and Notice dated 28.1.2016. In my view, the said documents needs to be examined at the Ld. CIT(A) in order to decide the issues in dispute which he has not considered, as stated by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee.

6.

Keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that in this case the issues in dispute needs to be remitted back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the same afresh, as per law. Accordingly, the issues in dispute are set aside and restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) is directed to consider the issues in dispute afresh after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Therefore, as requested by the Ld. Counsel of the assessee, the Assessee is directed through his Counsel to be present before the Ld. CIT(A) on 28.02.2017 at 10.00 AM and fully cooperate with the Ld. CIT(A), and did not take any unnecessary adjournment and file all the necessary papers before him to substantiate his case.

More judgments on Section 69C

All 8,217 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69C →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →