GULSHAN KUMAR,DEHRADUN vs. ITO, WARD- 1(3), DEHRADUN
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed
ITA 7350/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun26 Apr 2022AY 2012-13
Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Usita No. 7350/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Gulshan Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 40, Anand Chowk, Ward-1(3), Dehradun Dehradun (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acdpk1177F Assessee By : Sh. Romal Jain, Ca Revenue By : Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.04.2022 Order Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Haldwani Dated 10.08.2017. 2. Following Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee: “1. That On The Facts & In Law The Orders Passed By Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao7 & Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) {Hereinafter Referred To As The "Cit(A)) Are Void-Ab-Initio & Bad In Law. 2. That On Facts & In Law The Cit(A) Has Erred In Upholding The Addition Made By Learned Ao Of Rs 8,74,000/- On Account Of Sale Of Jewellery Made By The Assessee Despite Of The Fact That The Said Sale Was Truly Declared By Assessee In Its Return Of Income. The Addition Made By Learned Ao & Sustained By Hon’Ble Cit (A) Has Been Done On Erroneous & Frivolous Grounds Such As Item Wise Detail Of Sale Of Jewellery Not Provided, Buyer Not Being In Business Of Jewellery & Other Petty Issues. Both
For Appellant: Sh. Romal Jain, CAFor Respondent: Sh. N. C. Upadhyay, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 2Section 80D
1,50,000/- . The Learned AO made the addition by not considering the withdrawals made by assessee from a partnership firm, wherein he was a partner. The addition is erroneous as during assessment detailed day wise cash flow was submitted to the Learned AO and also copy of account of assessee in firm was also submitted. The assessee made
