ACIT, CC- 1, NEW DELHI vs. ULTRA HOME CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD., NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4335/DEL/2017Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 October 2023AY 2010-11Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to the AO to rebut the assessee's submissions. Therefore, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside.

What were the facts?

A search operation led to assessment proceedings where the AO made additions for bogus purchases and unexplained share application money. The CIT(A) deleted these additions. The Revenue appealed this deletion.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions without affording the AO a proper opportunity to respond to the assessee's submissions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 139

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

For Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT, DR
Hearing: 19.10.2023Pronounced: 31.10.2023

ORDER

PER KUL BHARAT, JM:

1.

This appeal by the Revenue pertaining to Assessment Year 2010-11 is directed against the order of the ld.CIT(A)-23, New Delhi, dated 11.04.2017. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The order of Ld. CIT(A) is not correct in law and on facts.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.37,63,71,555/- made by AO on account of bogus purchases/expenses claimed by the assessee for the year under consideration. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case the ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.66,00,000/- made by AO on account of share application money allegedly received by the assessee. 4. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

2.

The facts, in brief, are that a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) was carried out on 09.09.2010 in the case of M/s Amrapali Group of cases. The assessee was also covered. Thereafter, the case of the assessee was taken up for assessment u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act. The AO issued a notice u/s 153A calling upon the assessee to file Income-tax Return u/s 139 of the Act. While framing the assessment, the AO noticed about the bogus purchases by the assessee. Therefore, he made addition of Rs.37,63,71,555/- on account of bogus purchases. Further, the AO made addition of Rs.66 lakh on account of unexplained source of share application money. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before the ld.CIT(A). The ld.CIT(A), following his earlier order, deleted the impugned additions.

3.

At the time of hearing, no one attended the proceedings on behalf of the assessee. Therefore, we proceeded to decide this appeal after hearing the ld. DR.

4.

The ld. DR, apropos the grounds of appeal, submitted that the ld.CIT(A) without giving opportunity to the AO, deleted the additions. The AO ought to have been given opportunity to rebut the submissions of the assessee.

5.

We have heard the ld. DR and perused the material. We find force in the contention of the ld. DR that the ld.CIT(A) did not provide adequate opportunity to the assessee to rebut the submissions made by the assessee. Hence, the impugned order is hereby set aside and the issues are restored to the file of the ld.CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh, after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessing authority.

6.

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes.

More judgments on Section 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →