OM PRAKASH ARORA,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO, WARD 2(2)(1), GHAZIABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 196/DEL/2023Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 May 2023AY 2017-183 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the additions were made in the assessee's name with the wrong PAN. To uphold the principles of natural justice, the assessment order was set aside.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 43,24,500 to the assessee's income, which was a cash deposit in the bank account of a company where the assessee was a director. The assessee contended that the deposit did not belong to him and was made in the company's account with the wrong PAN.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits made in a company's bank account, where the assessee is a director, can be added to the assessee's individual income, especially when there is a contention of wrong PAN attribution.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 234A,Section 234B,Section 234D,Section 271AAC

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI KUL BHARAT

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Kalra, Adv
For Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23.05.2023Pronounced: 23.05.2023

O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM:

This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 08.12.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessing Officer (“AO”) has erred in assessing the total income of the Appellant under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, for the assessment year at INR 49,46,010 as against the returned income of INR 6,25,510.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of the AO inrelation to cash Rs.43,24,500 which had no connection with the Appellant and the same was deposited in the bank account of the company, namely, M/s. Jalex Automotive P. Ltd. of which the Appellant was one of the Directors.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the submissions in this regard and arbitrarily upholding the action of the AO of adding the cash deposit to the income of the Appellant, especially, when the same did not belong to the Appellant.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in levying interest under sections 234A, 234B& 234D of the Act.

5. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the AO has erred in initiating penalty proceeding under section 271AAC of the Act.”

2.

At the outset learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the additions have been made wrongly in assessee’s name in the case of wrong PAN. He submitted that the bank accounts where cash was deposited did not belong to him but to the company i.e. M/s Jalex Automotive Pvt. Ltd., where assessee is Director.

He has filed certain evidences which go to the root of the matter.

3.

Learned DR opposed the submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below.

4.

I have heard the rival contentions. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and to sub-serve the principles of natural justice, the assessment order is set aside and the matter is restored to the file of the Assessing Officer to frame the assessment afresh after considering the evidences filed by the assessee. Grounds raised are allowed for statistical purposes.

5.

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 23.05.2023.

More judgments on Section 234A

All 5,126 judgments and leading authorities on Section 234A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →