R S TRADERS,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD- 39(4), NEW DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the assessment and restored it to the Assessing Officer for a fresh assessment. This was done in the interest of natural justice, directing the Assessing Officer to provide adequate opportunity to the assessee.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) ex parte, and the assessee contended that they were not given adequate opportunities to explain unsecured loans and other expenses. The Revenue did not object to restoring the matter to the Assessing Officer.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessee was denied natural justice and adequate opportunity by the lower authorities. Whether the disallowances and additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified based on the evidence.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI
Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-13, New Delhi, dated 26-02-2020, pertaining to the assessment year 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“1(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) was not justified in dismissing the appeal without appreciating the replies filed and same is in total disregard to principle of natural justice. (ii) That the appellant having already filed requisite documents during the course of remand and appellate proceedings, the action of CIT(A)
R.S. Traders Vs. ITO in not giving an explicit finding on the merits of the case is in total disregard to provisions of section 250(6) of the Act.
(iii) That replies to notices issued by CIT(A0 and Assessing Officer were regularly e-filed and the same having direct bearing to the issues in dispute, the Assessing Officer & CIT(A) should have admitted & considered the same in the interest of justice and for proper adjudication of grounds in dispute.
2(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A0 was not justified in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in making 40% ad-hoc disallowance of expenses to the extent of Rs. 64,100/- u/s 37(1) incurred in the form of commission and conveyance charges without appreciating the nature of expenses and documents on record.
(ii) That the claim of expenses made by the Appellant is fully supported from relevant bills and vouchers already filed before the lower authorities and the same being incurred for the purpose of business, the impugned disallowance is wholly on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
3(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) is not justified in confirming addition of Rs. 14,50,000/- u/s 68 of the Act relating to the unsecured loans received by the appellant.
(ii) That the transactions of loans are fully supported from various documentary evidences and there being no adverse material on record to doubt the genuineness & creditworthiness of the lenders, the Assessing Officer has made the addition merely on the basis of surmises and conjectures.
(iii) That there being no dispute in regard to interest paid by the Appellant on such loan amounts and all the requisite documents being already filed before lower authorities, the action of the Assessing Officer in making such addition is arbitrary and mechanical.
4(i) That on the facts and circumstances of the case, the CIT(A0 was not justified in confirming the disallowance OF Rs. 1,00,915/- made u/s R.S. Traders Vs. ITO 37(1) incurred on account of salary paid to employees without appreciating the details filed by the Appellant.
(ii) That the salary payable outstanding in the liability side of balance sheet is an aggregate figure of employee salary & partner’s remuneration, the Assessing Officer has made this disallowance on the alleged ground that salary expenses claimed are less than the salary payable and as such the same is arbitrary and factually incorrect.
5. That the orders of the lower authorities are not justified on facts and the same are bad in law.
That the assessee craves leave to add, amend, alter or forgo any or all of the grounds as may be necessary and in the interest of justice.”
At the outset the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the Assessing Officer did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to explain the source of unsecured loan to the tune of Rs. 14,50,000/-. He submitted that the learned CIT(Appeals) also dismissed the appeal in the absence of the assessee.
Learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Revenue would have no objection if the matter is restored to the Assessing Officer.
I have heard the rival submissions, perused the entire record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is seen from the record that the impugned order was passed ex parte qua the assessee. Even the Assessing Officer
R.S. Traders Vs. ITO also did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee. Under these circumstances I deem it fit and proper in the interest of principles of natural justice to set aside the assessment and restore the same to the Assessing Officer for making assessment afresh. The grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purpose. The Assessing Officer is hereby directed to frame the assessment afresh after giving adequate opportunity to the assessee for proving the source of unsecured loans.
Assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 37(1)
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Smit Navnitlal Soni, Ahmedabad, Gujarat vs ITO Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad, GujaratITA 1434/AHD/2026[2021-22]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Shobha Sudamrao Tagad, Ahmednagar vs ITO WD-1, AhmednagarITA 311/PUN/2026[2023-24]Status: Disposed13 Oct 2026AY 2023-24
- Digjam Limited, Jamnagar vs The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 349/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2021-22
- Rajesh Maru, Mhow vs ITO-5(1), IndoreITA 839/IND/2025[2023-2024]Status: Disposed12 Oct 2026AY 2023-2024
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Basant Kumar Gupta vs. Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S Swapnashiyana Homes Developers Private Limited vs. The Union Of INDIAPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- M/S B.K. Agency Under The Proprietor Of Bhola Prasad vs. The Chief Commissioner, CGSTPatna · 2 Nov 2026
- Shree Hanumant Steel Traders vs. Assistant CommissionerChhattisgarh · 1 Nov 2026
- R.K.Service Station, Balasore vs. Commissioner CT And GST Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 31 Oct 2026