SURESH BANSAL,FARIDABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- II, FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3574/DEL/2018Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 September 2023AY 2012-13Bench: SH. SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the lower authorities failed to appreciate the facts correctly, particularly regarding the cash deposit which was allegedly a cheque clearing. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) relied on observations from a different assessment year without considering the distinct factual matrix.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions to the assessee's income based on cash deposits and sale of property transactions. The Commissioner (Appeals) sustained these additions. The assessee appealed to the Tribunal, arguing that the cash deposit was a cheque clearing and that the AO and CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts correctly.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO validly assumed jurisdiction under Section 153A and whether the additions made on account of cash deposits and sale of property were justified based on the evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 153A,Section 143(3),Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI

Before: SH. SHAMIM YAHYA & SH. ANUBHAV SHARMA

For Appellant: Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. And Somil Agrawal
Hearing: 21.09.2023Pronounced: 27.09.2023

The appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 23.02.2018 of CIT(A)-2, Gurgaon (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) arising out of an appeal before it against the assessment order dated 26.02.2015 passed u/s 153A/143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the DCIT, CC-II, Faridabad (hereinafter referred as the Ld. AO).

2.

In consequence to search proceedings the case of assessee was examined and Ld. AO had made an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the basis of cash deposits dated 20.08.2011. Further additions were made on the basis of 3 transactions on account of cash received from sale of property. Ld. CIT(A) had sustained the additions and the assessee is in appeal raising following grounds : “

1. That having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the action of Ld. AO in assuming jurisdiction and issuing of notice u/s 153A of the Act and that too without giving any opportunity of hearing.

2. That in any case and in any view of the matter, the assessment framed under section 153A of the Act, 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 upholding the action of the ld. AO in making addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of cash deposited in the bank account as alleged income from undisclosed sources and that too in the proceedings u/s 153A of the Act.

4. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of the Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the action of the Ld. A.O. in making addition of Rs. 16,80,000/- under section 69 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on account of part of the amount paid for purchase of properties.

6. That in any case and in any view of the matter, action of ld. CIT(A) in confirming the action of Ld. AO in making an addition of Rs. 16,80,000/- is bad in law and against the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. 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 passing the impugned order and that too without giving adequate opportunity of hearing and without observing the principle of natural justice.

8. That the appellant craves the leave to add, alter or amend the grounds of appeal at any stage and all the grounds are without prejudice to each other.”

More judgments on Section 153A

All 18,957 judgments and leading authorities on Section 153A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →