Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘D’: NEW DELHI
Appellant By Sh. Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CA Respondent by Mrs. Aashma Paul, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 17.02.2021 Date of Pronouncement 17.02.2021 ORDER PER BENCH: These 22 appeals raise identical grounds. They were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience.
2.0 The brief facts of the cases are that there was a search in Aerens Group of cases along with other related groups at the various residential and business premises. The search was conducted on 17.08.2011. Subsequent to the search, statutory notices u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) were issued to the above captioned assessees and the assessments were completed as under: ’s Name Asst. Year Assessed Income 3807/Del/2016 Amit Gupta 2010-11 Rs.37,03,294/- 3806/Del/2016 Amit Gupta 2008-09 Rs.31,51,191/- 3808/Del/2016 Amit Gupta 2011-12 Rs.1,69,47,018/- 3809/Del/2016 Amit Gupta 2012-13 Rs.57,40,046/- 3810/Del/2016 Vibha Gupta 2008-09 Rs.31,77,787/- 3811/Del/2016 Vibha Gupta 2010-11 Rs.32,03,202/- 3812/Del/2016 Vibha Gupta 2011-12 Rs.1,60,40,127/- 3813/Del/2016 Vibha Gupta 2012-13 Rs.50,42,588/- 3814/Del/2016 Uma Gupta 2008-09 Rs.39,26,723/- 3815/Del/2016 Uma Gupta 2010-11 Rs.28,92,688/- 3816/Del/2016 Uma Gupta 2011-12 Rs.1,60,73,233/- 3817/Del/2016 Uma Gupta 2012-13 Rs.51,71,869/- 3819/Del/2016 Ashish Gupta 2006-07 Rs.12,39,128/- 3820/Del/2016 Ashish Gupta 2011-12 Rs.15,90,613/- 3821/Del/2016 Ashish Gupta 2012-13 Rs.4,97,527/- 3822/Del/2016 Devanshi Amit 2006-07 Rs.12,22,824/- Gupta 3823/Del/2016 Devanshi Amit 2011-12 Rs.14,72,083/- Gupta 3824/Del/2016 Devanshi Amit 2012-13 Rs.6,85,623 /- Gupta 3825/Del/2016 Surender Gupta 2008-09 Rs.33,28,096/- 3826/Del/2016 Surender Gupta 2010-11 Rs.43,66,401/- 3827/Del/2016 Surender Gupta 2011-12 Rs.1,57,98,589/- 3828/Del/2016 Surender Gupta 2012-13 Rs.76,34,996/- 3.0 Aggrieved by these assessments, the captioned assessees approached the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the additions/disallowances. However, all the appeals were dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {CIT(A)}. Now, the assessees have approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal all the appeals by the Ld. CIT(A). The following grounds have been taken by the assessees:
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3807/Del/2016 “1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 28,32,100/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.”
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 31,64,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3808/Del/2016
The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in 1. dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in 2. dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that works was done by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in 3. dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 44,56,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in 4. dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 2,24,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that that services was provided by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in 5. rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, 6. modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3809/Del/2016
The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in 1. dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in 2. dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting 3. the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, 4. modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3810/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 31,64,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated.
The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3811/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 31,64,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3812/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that works was done by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 44,56,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover,
no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 2,24,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that services were provided by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
5. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
6. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3813/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that works was done by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3814/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 31,64,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3815/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 28,32,100/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
16 to 3817/Del/2016 ITA Nos.3819 to 3828/Del/2016 Sh. Amit Gupta & Ors. vs. ACIT 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3816/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that works was done by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 44,56,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 2,24,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that services were provided by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
5. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
6. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs.48,00,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that works was done by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3819/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving adequate opportunity to the appellant.
The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in 2. dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 12,12,500/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely or presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT(A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, 3. modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3820/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs.10,46,262/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that services were provided by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B and 234D of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3821/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 44,120/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that services were provided by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234D of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
21 to 3817/Del/2016 ITA Nos.3819 to 3828/Del/2016 Sh. Amit Gupta & Ors. vs. ACIT 4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3822/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 12,12,500/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT(A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3823/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer
and confirming the addition of Rs.10,46,261/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that services were provided by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3824/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 44,120/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that services were provided by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover,
no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3825/Del/2016
The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 31,64,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3826/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 28,32,100/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3827/Del/2016
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 1,12,00,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that works was done by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 44,56,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search and in respect of which no proceedings were abated. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer
and confirming the addition of Rs. 2,24,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that services were provided by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
5. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs. 48,00,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that works was done by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further,
Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of Rs.27,50,000/- arbitrarily and on presumption basis despite the fact that the inadmissible paper found during the search neither belongs to the appellant nor its business. Moreover no such expenditure was incurred by the appellant. Thus treating the same as unexplained expenditure is bad in the eyes of law. Therefore, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
4. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed.
The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing.
4.0 At the outset, the Ld. Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed all the appeals without giving adequate opportunity to the assessees of being heard. It was submitted by the Ld. Authorized Representative that even if the Ld. CIT(A) had to proceed ex-parte qua the assessees, the adjudication should have been made on the merits of the case before him.
5.0 Per contra, the Ld. Sr. Departmental Representative (DR) submitted that it was apparent from the reading of the impugned orders that the assessees had not co-operated at all during the course of appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A).
The Ld. SR. DR vehemently argued that the assessees should not be permitted to take advantage of their carelessness and non cooperative approach and that the appeals of the assessees deserved to be dismissed in view of the failure of the assessees to establish their claims with documentary evidences before both the Lower Authorities.
6.0 On a query from the Bench, both the parties, however, agreed that the appeals could be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for re-adjudication.
7.0 Having heard both the parties and duly taking note of the fact that both the parties have agreed that these appeals can be restored to the office of the Ld. CIT(A), for the cause of substantial justice, we deem it expedient to restore all the captioned appeals to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for being adjudicated upon afresh by passing a speaking order after giving proper opportunity to the assessees to present their cases. We also direct the assessees to fully co-operate during the course of the first appellate proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed ex-parte qua the assessees in accordance with law.
8.0 In the final result, all the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes.