SH. RAM KUMAR,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2774/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 December 2016AY 2006-075 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the matter needed to be examined afresh at the Assessing Officer's level. The assessee was directed to cooperate and produce all necessary evidence to substantiate their claim.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs. 36,08,100/- as unexplained income. The assessee claimed this was agricultural income and argued that they were not given adequate opportunity to present evidence.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition of Rs. 36,08,100/- was correctly treated as unexplained income instead of agricultural income, and whether the assessee was denied a proper opportunity to present evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69,Section 69A,Section 69B,Section 69C,Section 69D

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 18.11.2009 passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-XXIII, New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2006-07 on the following grounds:-

1.

That on the facts and circumstances of the case the order of the Ld. CIT Appeals 23 dt. 18.11.2009 is illegal, unjust and opposed to facts.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case a last opportunity be accorded to the appellant to substantiate its claim before the AO, since

agriculture income has been already accepted in A.Y. 2005-06 at Rs 39.54 lacs and Rs 14.93 lacs for A.Y. 2008-09.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition of Rs. 3608100/- as unexplained and undisclosed income and not as agricultural income.

4. That without prejudice to the above contentions, the addition of Rs.3608100/- has been made on the basis of appellant's own declaration but without

placing any corroborative evidence of having earned income from undisclosed sources.

5. That without prejudice to the above contentions,

section 68, 69, 69A, 69B, 69C, or 69D of the IT Act

1961 dealing with assessment of undisclosed income are not applicable in the instant case since no cash credit, money /bullion/ jewellery or unexplained investment was found by the assessing officer.

6. That the net income of the appellant be reduced by Rs.3608100/-.

2.

Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by the assessee, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake of convenience.

3.

At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has stated that Revenue authorities has passed the order in violation of the principle of natural justice and without giving adequate time and opportunity to the assessee to represent its case and to file its replies and clarifications. He requested that the assessee is having all the necessary evidences which can be produced before the AO, if this Bench granted an opportunity to the assessee to substantiate his case. He requested that last opportunity may be accorded to the assessee to substantiate its claim before the AO, since agriculture income has already been accepted in AY 2005-06 at Rs. 39.54 Lacs and Rs. 14.93 lacs for AY 2008-09.

4.

In this case, Notice of hearing to the parties were sent, in spite of the same, none appeared on behalf of the Revenue nor filed any application for adjournment. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the present case and the issue involved in the present Appeal, I am of the view that no useful purpose would be served to issue notice again and again to the Revenue, therefore, I am deciding the present appeal exparte qua Revenue, after hearing the Ld. AR of the assessee and perusing the records.

5.

I have heard Ld. Counsel of the assessee and carefully gone through the orders passed by the authorities below. I find that AO has observed that assessee failed to furnish proper explanation, documentary evidence in his support of having the agricultural income. However, the assessee’s counsel has stated that assessee is having all the necessary documents and evidences. In my considered view the matter needs to be examined afresh at the level of the AO, after considering all the documents / evidences. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I set aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO for fresh consideration, as per law, after considering all the documentary evidences. However, the assessee is directed to fully cooperate with the AO during the proceedings before him and not to take any unnecessary adjournment in the case and also produce all the necessary evidences before the AO to substantiate his claim.

6.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →