RAJ KUMAR ARORA,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT CIRCLE-1, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1747/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 December 2023AY 2012-13Bench: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member)6 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A)'s order was invalid as it was passed without a DIN number, rendering it non-compliant with CBDT circulars. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order which confirmed the AO's action of rejecting books of account and estimating net profit. The assessee also raised an additional ground regarding the appeal order being passed without a DIN number.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of the CIT(A)'s order due to the absence of a DIN number. Other issues included rejection of books of account, estimation of profit, and disallowance of deductions and set-offs.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 145,Section 80C,Section 80G,Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234C,Section 234D

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI

Before: SH. SAKTIJIT DEY & SH. N. K. BILLAIYA

Hearing: 19/12/2023Pronounced: 19/12/2023

This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A), Faridabad dated 27.08.2020 pertaining to A.Y. 2012- 13. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :-

“1. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in rejecting the books of account of the appellant by invoking the provisions of section 145 and thus erred in estimating the net profit at Rs 1,87,50,810/- and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and by disregarding the replies/details/information/evidences/submissions placed by the assessee on record and in violation of principles of natural justice.

2.

That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in rejecting the books of accounts of the appellant by invoking the provisions of section 145 and thus erred in estimating the net profit, is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

3.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not deleting the addition of Rs.6,07,10,000/- inter alia for the reason that such income did not relate to the year under appeal.

4.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in not allowing the set off of additional income of Rs.6,07,10,000/- against the loss claimed in other heads and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and by disregarding the replies/details/information/evidences/submissions placed by the assessee on record and in violation of principles of natural justice.

5.

That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming and sustaining the action of Ld. AO and that too by recording incorrect facts and findings and in violation of principles of natural justice.

6.

That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld.

AO in not allowing the deduction of Rs.1,00,000/- u/s 80C and Rs.1,00,000/- u/s 80G as claimed in the return of income.

7. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in passing the impugned assessment order and impugned addition made therein on account of estimation of net profit and the action of lower authorities in rejection of books of account are bad in law, illegal, unjustified, barred by limitation, contrary to law and facts and based upon recording of incorrect facts and findings, without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, in violation of principles of natural justice.

8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in not reversing the action of Ld. AO in charging interest u/s 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of Income Tax Act, 1961.

9.

That the appellant craves the leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal

at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

3. The assessee moved an application for the admission of additional grounds of appeal under Rule 11 of the appellate Tribunal rules 1963.

4. The additional ground reads as under :- “That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the action of Ld. CIT(A) in passing the impugned appeal order u/s. 250(6) dated 27.08.2020 is illegal, bad in law for the reason that the said appeal order has been passed without DIN number.”

5. Since the additional ground goes to the root of the matter we adjudicate it first.

6. The CBDT Circular No.19/2019 dated 14.08.2019 is binding on the revenue and is as under :-

7.

Clause-4 of the aforementioned circular when read with clause-2 makes the appellate order not in conformity with the mandate of the circular and, therefore, it shall be treated as invalid and deem to have never been issued.

8.

In the light of the circular the order of the first appellate authority is treated as invalid and has never been issued. 9. However, the CIT(A) is at liberty to reframe the appellate order in line with the mandate of CBDT circular (supra) after affording a reasonable and adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. 10. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. 11. Decision announced in the open court on 19.12.2023.

More judgments on Section 145

All 1,584 judgments and leading authorities on Section 145 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →