M/S. NATIONAL TRANSPORT CO.,MEERUT vs. ITO, BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3970/DEL/2014Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 September 2016AY 2008-094 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an affidavit cannot be ignored without contrary evidence and directed the AO to verify the assessee's claim. Consequently, additions related to unexplained receipts and gross receipts were set aside to the AO.

What were the facts?

The assessee claimed not to have received any amount from M/s Bikaneer Wala Private Limited, supported by an affidavit. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition based on Form 26AS. Another addition was confirmed by the CIT(A) for unexplained gross receipts.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made based on Form 26AS and unexplained gross receipts are valid when the assessee provides an affidavit denying receipt of funds. The validity of penalty proceedings when the assessment order is set aside.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 271(1)(c),Section 271A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Goyal, Adv

is filed by the assessee directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Meerut dated 11.03.2014 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2008-09. 2. After hearing rival contentions I find that the assessee states that he has not received any amount from M/s Bikaneer Wala Private Limited. The assessee submitted an affidavit that no such receipt was received. The Assessing Officer (A.O.) made the addition on the basis of form No. 26 AS.

3.

On these facts and circumstances I am of the considered view that this issue should be set aside to the file of the A.O. with the direction to verify the claim of the assessee that it had not received any amount from M/s Bikaneer Wala Foods Private Limited. When certain facts are stated by way of an affidavit, the same cannot be ignored and brushed aside unless there is evidence to the contrary. In the result ground No. 2 of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

4.

Ground No. 3 is on an addition of Rs. 1,68,000/–. At page 10 the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed this addition based on his conclusion that the assessee was not able to explain the gross receipts. Thus this ground is linked with the decision to be taken by the AO on ground No.

2.

As we have set aside ground No. 2 to the file of the A.O., I set aside this ground also to the file of the AO.

5.

Ground No. 1 and 4 are general in nature.

6.

In the result this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 7. is a penalty levied under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on the assessment made under section 144 of the Act for the A.Y. 2008-09. As I have set aside the assessment for the A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No. 3970/Delhi/14 to the file of Assessing Officer, this penalty levied under section 271(1)© of the Act is also set aside to the file of the A.O.

8.

In the result this appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. is an appeal against penalty levied under section 271A of the Act. In view of my decision to set aside the original assessment to the file of Assessing Officer and also in view of the factual dispute as to whether the assessee is maintaining books of accounts or not, specifically in the light of the tax audit report furnished by the assessee, I set aside this issue also to the file of Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 10. In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 11. In the result all the three appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 23rd September, 2016.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →