109 TTJ 700 (Del) SMC Share Brokers Ltd. v. DCIT

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

…345, it was held that in absence of witness being made available for cross examination, his statement could not be relied upon to the detriment of the assessee. Tribunal was justified in setting aside block assessment. ii) In the case of CIT Vs. S M Aggarwal 293 ITR 43, it was held that statement made by the assessee's daughter, cannot be said to be relevant or admissible evidence against the assessee, since the assessee was not given any opportunity to cross examine her and even from the statement, no conclusion can be drawn that the entries made on the relevant page belongs to the assessee and represents his u…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Mukesh Garg, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the department for the assessment years 2007-08 and 2010-11 are dismissed while the appeal for the assessment year 2008-09 is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 3546, 3547 & 3549/Del/2012 Asstt. Years : 2007-08, 2008-09 & 2010-11 Assistant Commissioner Of Vs Sh. Mukesh Garg, Income Tax, Circle-12, 292, Katra Peran, Tilak Bazar, New Delhi Delhi-110006 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaapg2585Q Assessee By : Sh. K. P. Ganguli, Adv. & Sh. G. S. Goel, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Sunil Chander Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.06.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.08.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

…345, it was held that in absence of witness being made available for cross examination, his statement could not be relied upon to the detriment of the assessee. Tribunal was justified in setting aside block assessment. ii) In the case of CIT Vs. S M Aggarwal 293 ITR 43, it was held that statement made by the assessee's daughter, cannot be said to be relevant or admissible evidence against the assessee, since the assessee was not given any opportunity to cross examine her and even from the statement, no conclusion can be drawn that the entries made on the relevant page belongs to the assessee and represents his u…

Subhash Khattar, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri O.P. Kant Assessment Year: 2006-07 Subhash Khattar, Vs. Acit, B-66, Naraina Ind. Area, Central Circle-18, Phase-Ii, New Delhi. New Delhi. (Pan: Aafpk3807R) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri U.K. Shukla, Adv. Department By: Shri B.K. Singh, Cit( Dr) Date Of Hearing : 06 .04.2016 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 :06.2016 Order Per I.C. Sudhir:The Assessee Has Questioned First Appellate Order On Several Grounds Mainly Involving The Issues; (I) As To Whether Learned Cit(Appeals) Was Justified In Upholding The Validity Of Jurisdiction Of The Assessing Officer Assumed Under Sec. 153A & (Ii) The Addition Of Rs.3,21,000 Made On Account Of Unexplained Source Of Investment In Cash In A Project On The Basis Of Material Found During The Search At The Premises Of Aerens Group. 2. Heard & Considered The Arguments Advanced By The Parties In View Of Orders Of The Authorities Below, Material Available On Record & The Decisions Relied Upon.

…um.); iv) CIT vs. Kabul Chawla – ITA No. 707, 709 & 713 of 2014 – judgment dated 08.08.2015 (Del.); v ) CIT vs. Prem Prakash Nagpal (2013) – Taxmann.com 353 6 (Del.); vi) CIT vs. Alpha Impex Pvt. Ltd. – 45 Taxmann.com 2015 (Bom); vii) CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal – 293 ITR 43 (Del.); etc. 6. The Learned CIT(DR) on the other hand tried to justify the orders of the authorities below. He submitted that vide letter dated 21.2.2012, the authorized representative of the assessee has admitted before the Investigation Wing that the alleged investment was made. He submitted that most of the other investors in Aerens Group had…

Commissioner of Income Tax-Xiv vs. Vivek Aggarwal

…owly on the basis of the document which had no connection or bearing with the assessee’s declared income. The learned counsel relied upon several decisions including Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. v. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC), CIT vs. S.M. Aggarwal (2007) 293 ITR 43 (Del.) and CIT v/s Kulwant Rai (2002) 291 ITR 36 (Del). So far as ₹41,32,800/- is concerned learned counsel pointed out that the assessee had furnished explanation by way of the concerned parties’ affidavit which was not even considered and replied to by the AO in assessment proceedings. This had compelled the CIT to reject the addition o…