Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI H. S. SIDHU & SHRI O.P. KANT
PER H.S. SIDHU, JM ORDER This appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 1.9.2011 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi relating to Assessment Year 2007-08 on the following revised grounds:-
That the assessment order passed by the AO u/s. 143(3) and the additions made are illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and against the principle of natural justice.
2. That the additions/ disallowances made are illegal, unjust, highly excessive and are not based on any material on record by the Assessing Officer. The total income of the Appellant has been wrongly and illegally computed by the Assessing Officer at Rs.28,00,656/- as against income/loss
declared at Rs.1,06,150/-. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the same.
3. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition made by the AO on account of amount received from his brother at Rs. 26,94,506/- in his bank account to meet certain family expenses treating as un-explained expenses u/s 69.
4. That the learned CIT(A) and the AO failed to appreciate that assessee has discharged his onus to prove the gift as genuine by proving identity, creditworhtiness, genuineness and occasions u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said addition of Rs. 26,94,506/- is illegal. Unjust and is uncalled for and it is liable to be deleted. ~
5. The Assessing Officer has erred in not providing proper and adequate opportunity of hearing to the Appellant to place the evidence/details on record to substantiate its claim during the assessment proceedings.
6. The additions made and the observations made are unjust, unlawful and based on mere surmises and conjunctures. The additions made cannot be justified by any material on record and also excessive.
The explanation given in the evidence produced, material placed that has been made available on record has not been properly considered and judicially interpreted and the same do not justify the additions/ allowances made.
The interest under Section 234A & 234B has been wrongly and illegally charged as the Appellant could not have foreseen the additions/ disallowances made and could not have included the same in current income for payment of Advance tax. The interest charged under various sections is also wrongly worked out.
The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter and or modify the grounds of appeal of the said appeal.
All of the above grounds of appeal are without prejudice and are mutually exclusive to each other.
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.
At the time of hearing, Ld. Counsel of the assessee has filed an Application under Rule 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 in which he has requested for admission of additional evidences which is very much essential for the disposal of the present Appeal and is also very essential evidence on the addition in dispute i.e. Bank Statement of Rajesh Dutta vide Paper Book dated 16.1.2012 at Serial No. 9 Page No. 15 to 18 and Bank account of subsequent year in which amount has been refunded to by Sh. Rajeev Dutta. The assessee has also filed the Affidavit supporting the Application for admission of additional evidences. Assessee has contended in the Application for Admission of additional evidence that the Revenue Authority has made the addition in dispute in the hands of the assesee by treating the same as undisclosed investment u/s. 69 only on the ground that assessee has not established the creditworthiness of his brother Sh. Rajesh Dutta who is an NRI and from whom the amount has been received for the expenditure of his ill father. The amount has been paid by the brother of the assessee by account payee cheque for that the assessee has attached the bank statement and because this evidence was not in the possession of the assessee at the time of assessment proceedings, he requested additional evidence may be admitted and issue in dispute may be remitted back to the file of the AO for deciding the same afresh, under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
Ld. DR has not raised any serious objection on the admission of additional evidence.
We have heard both the parties and perused the records. In the interest of justice and the contention raised by the Assessee’s counsel that additional evidence filed by the Assessee i.e. Bank Statement of Rajesh Dutta vide Paper Book dated 16.1.2012 at Serial No. 9 Page No. 15 to 18 and Bank account of subsequent year in which amount has been refunded to by Sh. Rajeev Dutta which is mentioned at para no. 5 of the Application filed u/r 29 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 are very essential, hence, the same are admitted. We are also of the view that the additional evidences filed by the assessee requirs thorough examination at the level of the AO, therefore, in the interest of justice, we are setting aside the issues in dispute to the file of the AO to examine the additional evidences filed by the assessee and decide the same afresh, as per law, after giving adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 05/09/2016.