SHRI SURENDRA MALIK,SHAMLI vs. ITO, SHAMLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2165/DEL/2015Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 November 2015AY 2010-113 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged that the peak credit computation was disputed and that the assessee was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. The matter was remitted back to the AO for fresh computation of peak credit.

What were the facts?

The assessee deposited a substantial sum in his bank account and provided conflicting explanations regarding its source. The Assessing Officer (AO) made an addition based on peak credit, which was confirmed by the CIT(A).

What were the issues?

Whether the addition made by the AO on account of unexplained bank deposits was correctly computed and whether the assessee was afforded adequate opportunity to present their case.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI R.S. SYAL

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Gupta
For Respondent: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR
Hearing: 15.12.2016Pronounced: 16.12.2016

(Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Ankit Gupta Respondent by: Shri S.K. Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 15.12.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 16.12.2016 ORDER

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 19.01.2015 in relation to Assessment Year 2010-11.

2.

It is a recalled matter inasmuch as the earlier ex parte order passed by the Bench was subsequently recalled vide its order dated 22.8.2016 in MA No.22/Del/2016.

3.

The only issue raised in this appeal is against the confirmation of addition of Rs.12,14,500/-. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee deposited a sum of Rs.19,13,500/- in his bank account on various dates. On being called upon to explain the source of such deposits, the assessee earlier stated that the deposits were made out of sale proceeds during the year. Later on, the stand was changed and it was put forth that the deposits were made out of sale proceeds of vehicles and advances received against sale of properties. The AO observed that the assessee was changing its stand about the source of deposits. Computing the peak credit, the AO made addition of Rs.12,15,100/- u/s 68 of the Act, which got confirmed in the first appeal. The assessee is aggrieved against the sustenance of this addition.

4.

I have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The ld. AR did not dispute that the sustenance of addition on peak credit. However, it was submitted that the peak credit was wrongly computed by the AO and the same got confirmed as such. A prayer was made that correct amount of peak credit be determined and added to the total income. The same was not controverted by the ld. DR. Under these circumstances, I set aside the impugned order and remit the matter to the file of AO for computing the correct amount of peak credit for making addition, after allowing due opportunity to the assessee of being heard.

5.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →