DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE-32, DELHI vs. VINOD KUMAR BAJAJ , DELHI

O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. This appeal in No. 163/Del/2022 for A.Y. 2016-17 arises out of the order by ld CIT(A)-30, New Delhi in appeal No. 10399/2019- 20 dated 17.03.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ld CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s 153 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as Act) dated

CO No. 163/Del/2022 Shri Vinod Kumar Bajaj 17.12.2019 by the AO, DCIT, Central Circle-32, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ld. AO).

CO No. 163/Del/2022 Shri Vinod Kumar Bajaj House, 2-3, Shivaji Enclave, New Delhi. The assessee filed reply letter dated 02.12.2019 and submitted the complete note on business activity and the nature of income which included income from salary of Rs. 60,000/-, business profit of Rs. 8,01,986/- and income from other sources of Rs. 74,246/-. The assessee also filed reply vide letter dated 14.12.2019 and submitted that political survey work is not done by him and the same is the business of RNB International Pvt. Ltd. The assessee further submitted that emails between Vijay Kumar Bajaj and Kishan Kumar Bajaj are internal e- mails where only scope of work was discussed and no such services were indeed rendered by the assessee. The ld AO however, ignored these submissions of the assessee and proceeded to add the income in the sum of Rs. 6,61,50,000/- on the presumption that assessee had rendered these services and earned corresponding income thereon. The ld CIT(A) deleted this addition on the ground that AO had made this addition merely based on surmises and conjectures and without appreciating any corroborative evidence on record.

CO No. 163/Del/2022 Shri Vinod Kumar Bajaj 7. From the perusal of the materials available on record, we find that the sole basis of the addition is only internal email dated 17.02.2016 sent by assessee to Shri Kishan Kumar Bajaj, which apparently contained a statement that assessee had entered into an agreement with the Chief Minister of Assam for providing election related consultancy services for the then upcoming Assam Legislative Elections in the month of April, 2016. The entire email is reproduced at page 5 of the assessment order and the same is not reiterated herein for the sake of brevity. The ld AO also found that two emails sent by the assessee to Shri Gaurav Gogoi, son of Chief Minister of Assam, Shri Tarun Gogoi, containing certain election related reports in PDF format. Accordingly, the ld AO had concluded that assessee had rendered election related services and earned consultancy income of Rs. 5,25,000/- per constituency and added in the assessment. In our considered opinion and on perusal of the email, nowhere it states that the assessee had indeed rendered consultancy services to the political party. Email only contains the scope of services to be rendered by the assessee, if the assessee is engaged to do so. In any case, the consultancy charge of Rs. 5,25,000/- is merely an average of figures of Rs. 4,25,000/- and Rs. 6,25,000/- mentioned in the email which has been considered by the ld AO. Moreover, the email does not specify anywhere that the assessee had indeed rendered consultancy services for all the constituencies that are relevant for Assam Legislative Elections. Hence, this very clearly goes to prove that extrapolation has been done by the ld AO by taking a single piece of information contained in the email and alleging that the assessee had rendered services for all the election constituencies in Assam. It was submitted that the email dated 17.02.2016 contained only a general survey that show case quality of services and not as part of services itself. This can never be construed as rendering of actual services by the assessee. We find that nowhere in the email, there is some mention of 126 Page | 4

CO No. 163/Del/2022 Shri Vinod Kumar Bajaj constituencies in total for which services are rendered. Hence, determination of income based on surmise and conjecture is grossly illegal and incorrect on the part of the AO.