What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal found that the Assessing Officer had not given the benefit of peak credit, opening balance, and withdrawals, which was a factual error. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the Assessing Officer for correct computation.

The assessee appealed against the CIT(A)'s order confirming an addition of Rs 16,36,700. The grounds of appeal related to the calculation of peak credit and profit on alleged turnover.

What were the issues?

Whether the Assessing Officer correctly computed the peak credit by considering opening balance and withdrawals. Whether the profit calculation on alleged turnover was accurate.

Sh. Rajbir Singh vs ITO | ITAT Chandigarh 2018

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH

Before: SMT. DIVA SINGH & SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR

Hearing: 21/03/2018Pronounced: 22/03/2018

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH’B’, CHANDIGARH

BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

ITA No.640/Chd/2017 Assessment Year: 2010-11

Sh. Rajbir Singh Vs. The ITO S/o Sh. Surinder Singh Ward 1(3) R/o H.No. 1670, Sector-7C Chandigarh Chandigarh

PAN No. AWDPS2536E

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee By : Sh. Navdeep Monga Revenue By : Sh. Manjit Singh

Date of hearing : 21/03/2018 Date of Pronouncement : 22/03/2018

ORDER PER B.R.R. KUMAR A.M.

The present appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), Chandigarh dt. 19/01/2017.

In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:

i. That Ld. CIT (Appeals)-I, Chandigarh has erred in law and on facts, in confirming the total addition of Rs 16,36,700/- as against returned income of Rs.1,73,740/-.

ii. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-I, Chandigarh has erred in calculating the peak credit as Rs 14,04,500/-.

iii. That on law, facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT (Appeals)-I, Chandigarh has erred in calculating a profit of 5% on alleged total turnover of Rs 58,44,000/- as Rs 2,92,200/-. However, after deducting Rs 60,000/- it would come to Rs 2,32,200 on account of car sale. iv. That the impugned order dated 18.01.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is highly excessive, unreasonable and unjustified and outside the scope of natural justice. Further, it has been made without resorting to proper provisions of the Income Tax act, 1961.

Ground No.2 & 3 of the assessee pertains to error in the calculation of peak credit and also not giving due benefit to the withdrawals made by the assessee.

During the argument before us, we observe that the benefit of the peak credit, opening balance and the withdrawals have not been given by the Assessing Officer. Thus it is a factual error on the face of the record. Hence the case is being sent back to the file of the Assessing Officer to compute the peak credit correctly after taking into consideration the opening balance and the withdrawals.

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

Order pronounced in the open court.

Sd/- Sd/- (DIVA SINGH) (B.R.R.KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 22/03/2018 AG Copy to: The Appellant, The Respondent, The CIT, The CIT(A), The DR

SH. RAJBIR SINGH,CHANDIGARH vs. ITO, CHANDIGARH

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments