DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), GHAZIABAD, GHAZIABAD V. RAKESH SHARMA, GHAZIABAD

ITA 3030/DEL/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax against the order of the CIT(A), which had deleted an addition of Rs.2,43,40,180 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2017-18. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer, Circle-2(1), Ghaziabad, under the provisions of section 45(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, concerning the transfer of personal capital to the business's capital account. The CIT(A) accepted the remand report from the Assessing Officer, which supported the assessee's position, leading to the deletion of the addition. The Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, noting that the issue of section 45(3) was not addressed in the CIT(A)'s order and that new issues cannot be raised at the tribunal level that were not part of the lower authorities' orders.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 471597 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-03-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRAKASH SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARPREET KAUR SANSRA
• Section: 201

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. MITHA LAL MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.3030/Del/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Ghaziabad. Vs. Rakesh Sharma, H. No. 261, Sector-1, Chiranjiv Vihar, Ghaziabad (UP) PIN: 201 001 [PAN No. ABJPS6501Q] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Shri Prakash Sinha, Advocate Respondent by Ms. Harpreet Kaur Sansra, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 16/01/2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21/03/2025 ORDER Per Dr. Mitha Lal Meena, A.M.: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”dated 15.04.2024 which is arising of the assessment order dated 26.11.2019 passed by the 2 ITA No.3030/Del/2024 Assessing Officer, Circle-2(1), Ghaziabad (in short “the AO) in respect of assessment year 2017-18 wherein the department challenged deletion of addition of Rs.2,43,40,180 based on remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer by ignoring the provisions of section 45(3) of the Act under following grounds of appeal: 1. Whether the Ld. CIT(A) appeal is correct in deleting the addition of ₹2,43,40,180 by accepting the remand report submitted by the AO by ignoring the provisions of section 45(3) of the IT Act 1961, as the assessee transferred his Personal Capital to the capital account of business. 2. That the appellant craves leave to add, modify, amend or delete any of the grounds of appeal at the time of hearing and all the above grounds are without Bursitis to each other. 3. Prayer-it is prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be set aside to the file of the assessing officer to decide the matter on merit after due verification of the details regarding transfer of Personal Capital to the capital account of the business. 2. Having heard both the sides, perusal of record and the impugned order, we find that the issue raised regarding ignoring the provisions of section 45(3) of the IT Act 1961, spread over in the grounds of appeal by 3 ITA No.3030/Del/2024 the department, is not emanating from the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT (A). Accordingly, the department appeal would be liable to be dismissed as not maintainable. 3. Further it is evident from the record that the learned CIT (Appeals) has decided the appeal on the merits of the case after considering the requisite submission and documentary evidence furnished by the assessee during the appellate proceedings and taking rebuttal of the Assessing Officer on record wherein the Assessing Officer has accepted the contention of the assessee in the remand report without any adverse remark. Thus, the Ld. CIT (A) was justified in accepting the explanation of the assessee regarding the investment of Rs.2,43,40,180 as the amount being transferred from his personal assets. 3. In the above view, we find no infirmity or perversity in the decision of the Ld. CIT(A) to the facts on record. The Impugned order of the Ld. CIT (A) is upheld. 4. Without prejudice to the above, it clarified that the right course available with the Department is to initiate proceeding under 263 of the 4 ITA No.3030/Del/2024 act, if it is satisfied that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicious to the interest of revenue due to the AO’s ignorance in applicability of the provisions of section 45(3) of the IT Act 1961, but the department can not be permitted to raise new issue before the tribunal which has not been arising out of the orders of the lower authorities. 5. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, the revenue appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced on 21/03/2025 in accordance with the Rule 34(4) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. MITHA LAL MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DOC* Dated: 21.03.2025 Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT (Appeals) ` 5.DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELH "