PUMPWELL DRILLERS PVT LTD,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD - 20(2), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1304/DEL/2020Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 April 2023AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to admit the additional evidence submitted by the assessee and pass an appropriate order after providing an opportunity of being heard. This was done in the interest of justice.

What were the facts?

The Assessing Officer (AO) added Rs. 72,37,166/- of contract receipts to the assessee's income under Section 68 as the assessee did not cooperate. The CIT(A) rejected additional evidence submitted by the assessee and confirmed the addition.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in not admitting additional evidence and confirming the addition based on gross receipts instead of profit margin.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘F’ : NEW DELHI

For Appellant: Shri Jitender Wadhwa, CA
For Respondent: Shri B.K. Singh, Sr. DR
Hearing: 03.04.2023

(PAN : AAACP7268G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Shri Jitender Wadhwa, CA REVENUE BY : Shri B.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 03.04.2023 Date of Order : 13.04.2023 ORDER

PER SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

1.

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT (Appeals)-7, Delhi dated 12.02.2020 pertaining to AY 2011-12.

2.

The grounds of appeal

taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. On the facts & Circumstances of the case, the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax ( Appeals) [ CIT ( A) ] is bad, both in the eye of law and on the facts.

2. That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in law and facts in not admitting the additional evidence adducted by the appellant during the appellate proceedings before the learned

3 That having regard to facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of ld AO of treating the gross receipt of Rs.72 as reflected in form 26AS as taxable income, of the appellant instead of a reasonable profit margin as the total income of the appellant company.

It is prayed that above mentioned addition is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law, which is liable to be deleted, be deleted.”

3.

Brief facts of the case are that in the assessment order, AO noted that after giving several opportunities, assessee did not turn up, hence the impugned money received amounting to Rs.72,37,166/- on account of contract receipts was added under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act') in the hands of the assessee.

4.

Before the ld. CIT (A), assessee adduced some additional evidences. However, because assessee had not cooperated earlier, ld. CIT(A) rejected the additional evidences and confirmed the addition.

5.

Assessee is in appeal before us against this order. We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

6.

Ld. Counsel of the assessee prayed that the additional evidences may kindly be accepted and the matter may be remitted to the file of ld.

7.

Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to admit the additional evidences and pass an appropriate order. Needless to say, assessee may be provided an opportunity of being heard.

8.

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on this 13th day of April, 2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →