DARSHIT DEVELOPERS ,VALSAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5, VALSAD
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 471/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat22 Sept 2023AY 2010-11
Bench: Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.471/Srt/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2010-11) (Virtual Court Hearing) Darshit Developers Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, C/O Kashmiraben Shaileshbhai Valsad Room No.204/Palak Vs. Patel/ Bhagwati Bunglowes / Arcade, Near Pali Hill, Tithal Maninagar Society, Tithal Cross Road, Valsad-396001 Road, Valsad-396001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aagfd 5807 L (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Rajesh Upadhyay, Ar िनधा"रती की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 05/09/2023 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/09/2023 आदेश / Order Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”], Dated 07.07.2023, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Assessment Order Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 19.12.2017. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Follows: “1. Ld. Cit[A], Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld A.O’S Reopening U/S 147 & Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Act Ignoring The Fact & Law That Incorrect Information Received From Ddit[Inv.] Does Not Give Jurisdictional To The A.O For Invoking Reassessment Proceedings Us/ 147 Of The Act. 2. Ld. Nfac, Delhi Has Erred In Law & On Facts To Upheld Addition Of Partner’S Capital Of Rs.12,50,000/- [Shilpaben Shah] As Well As Another Partner’S Capital Rs.12,50,000/- [Nipaben Shah] + Total Rs.25,00,000/- Ignoring The Fact That There Was No Business Activity Of Firm In The Year Under Assessment As Well As Partner’S Capital Contribution Cannot Be Treated As Income Of The Firm Considering Facts Of Appellant’S Case.”
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148
…in the case of CIT vs. Taj Borewell [2007] 291 ITR 232 (Mad) iv) Telangana & Andhra Pradesh High Court: in the case of CIT vs. M. Venkateswara Rao and other [2015] 370 ITR 212 (T&AP) v) Punjab & Haryana High Court: in CIT vs. Metal and Metals of India (2007) 208 CTR 457 (P&H) vi) Rajasthan High Court: the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. Kewal Krishna and Partners [2009] 18 DTR 121 (Raj) has also taken similar view. vii) Madhya Pradesh High Court” Commissioner of Income Tax v. Metachem Industries [2001] 245 ITR 160 (MP) and it was held that according to Section 68 the burden was on the ae to satisfactorily explain…
