ACIT(OSD), RANGE-10, DELHI, NEW DELHI vs. GAUTAM TECHARGO PRIVATE LIMITTED, DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1221/DEL/2024Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 November 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that additions cannot be deleted at the appellate stage without factually countering the AO's reasons. The CIT(A)'s findings were considered too general. Therefore, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the order of the CIT(A) which had partly allowed the assessee's appeal against additions made by the AO. The assessee, engaged in trading of food grains and commission agency, faced additions on account of interest, share capital, unsecured loan, and disallowance of various expenses.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made by the AO can be deleted without factually countering the reasons, and whether the CIT(A) provided sufficient grounds for allowing the appeal.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 36(i)(iii),Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(1)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCHES : B : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN & SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.11.2025Pronounced: 19.11.2025
1.

This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 18.01.2024 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-4/10702/2016-17 arising out of the appeal before it against the order dated 29.12.2016 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the AO, Ward-10(1), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO).

2.

At the time of hearing, none appeared for the assessee and the record shows that the notices have been issued repeatedly including by registered post and the same are received back with the report that ‘no such person on the spot.’ No further notice is justified. The record was perused and the ld. DR was heard. The assessee is a company engaged in the business of trading of food grains and commission agent of the same. The ld. AO added Rs.1,79,16,000/- to the income of the assessee being interest @ 12% on the opening balance of the party M/s Gautam Overseas and Rs.4,20,000/- of M/s Karan Foods Ltd. u/s 36(i)(iii). Further, addition of Rs.2 crores was made u/s 68 of the Act on account of issue of share capital, Rs.1,61,00,000/- u/s 68 for unsecured loan and Rs.50,92,896/- being 50% ad hoc disallowance on various expenses like brokerage, processing fees, travelling expenses, business promotion expenses, car expenses, godown rent and selling and distribution expenses. The assessee had succeeded partly for which the Revenue is in appeal and after going through the impugned order of the ld.CIT(A), we find that additional evidences filed by the assessee were admitted, but, the ld.CIT(A) has partly allowed the appeal of the assessee on the basis of giving a very general findings while the ld. DR has cited before us the various reasons given by the AO. We are of the considered view that only because there could be a different opinion of the material evidences taken at

More judgments on Section 36(i)(iii)

All 49 judgments and leading authorities on Section 36(i)(iii) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →