Amrit Mohini Suri, New Delhi V. ITO WARD - 54(1), New Delhi

ITA 1273/DEL/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Amrit Mohini Suri, the appellant, who contested the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) dated 28.02.2020, which pertained to the assessment year 2010-11. The primary contention was regarding the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on incorrect information about client code modifications through a broker. The CIT(A) had sustained the additions made by the Income Tax Officer, which included undisclosed profits from F&O transactions and undisclosed stock. The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) had not addressed several of the appellant's grounds in their decision, leading to the remand of the case for a comprehensive review.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 124245 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-02-2023
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2020
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Transactions in derivatives
• Section: 147

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI ] BEFORE SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR US, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 1273/DEL/2020 (A.Y. 2010-11) Amrit Mohini Suri, 2-A, Mathura Road, Jangpura-B, New Delhi – 110 014. PAN No. AGBPM7278F ( APPELLANT ) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward : 54 (1), New Delhi. ( RESPONDENT ) Assessee by : Shri Neeraj Jain, C. A. & Shri P.K. Mishra, C. A. Department by : Shri Kanv Bali. Sr. D. R.; ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR US, JM 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.02.2020 of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [(hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals)] Delhi-36, for assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal :- “1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in sustaining the reopening of the assessment under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 without dealing with the grounds (no. 2 & 3) before him agitating the reopening made without application of mind as the information received by the Id. AO from the Investigation Wing was that the appellant had received benefit of Client Code Modification through a broker namely M/s. Amrapali Aadya Trading & Investment Pvt. Ltd. which was factually incorrect. 2. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not dealing with the ground no. 6, and 7 in his order. 3. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in not adjudicating ground no. 8 made taken by the appellant before him and has also not given any findings in respect of the submissions Date of Hearing 01.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement 23.03.2023 2 ITA No. 1273/Del/2020 Amrit Mohini Suri, N. Delhi regarding the same made before him and thereby sustaining the addition of Rs.3,48,49,628/- out of which Rs. 3,44,75,154/- are relatable to F & O intra-day transaction of purchases of value of Rs. 1,73,00,000/- and sale of value of Rs. 1,71,75,154/- in respect of 1,00,000 equity shares of Amtek Auto Limited on a single day i.e., 04.03.2010 through a broker M/s. Deepak Chandravadan Dalal resulting in a loss of Rs. 1,24,846/-. 4. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in holding that the Id. AO has examined and found that the appellant is not properly disclosing the income by indulging in irregular activities resulting in hiding of income by shifting away legit profits in the garb of punching errors on account of Client Code Modification in respect of F & O transactions and thereby sustaining the addition made by the learned assessing officer amounting to Rs. 3,48,49,628/- by grossly ignoring the evidences adduced by the appellant. 5. The above grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income declaring income of Rs. 1,03,52,431/-. The assessment order came to be passed by making addition of undisclosed profit from F&O of Rs. 3,48,49,628/- and further made addition under undisclosed stock of Rs. 1,81,05,940/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order dated 30.12.2013, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld CIT(A). The ld CIT(A) vide order dated 28.02.2020 partly allowed the appeal which is order impugned in the present appeal. 5. We have heard and perused the material on record and given thoughtful consideration. As per ground of appeal, the assessee is having grievance against the ld CIT(A) that the ld CIT(A) sustained the reopening of the assessment order u/s 147 without dealing with the ground No. 2 and 3 urged by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) and further, not dealt with the ground No. 6 and 7 by the ld CIT(A). Further, the ld CIT(A) has also not adjudicated the ground No. 8 urged by the assessee before the ld CIT(A) and has not given a specific finding in support of the submission made on those grounds. 6. The ld DR on the other hand relied on the orders of the lower authorities and sought for dismissal of the appeal. 3 ITA No. 1273/Del/2020 Amrit Mohini Suri, N. Delhi 7. On going through the order of the ld CIT(A), it is found that the ld CIT(A) has not dealt with the issue of reopening of the assessment u/s 147 which has been specifically raised in ground Nos. 2 and 3 of the assessee. Further, the ld CIT(A) has also not dealt with the ground No. 6 to 8 separately. By considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it fit to remand the entire matter to the file of the ld CIT(A) with a direction to consider the matter afresh by dealing with all the grounds urged by the assessee. Nevertheless the assessee shall be provided with reasonable opportunity of being heard. Accordingly, we partly allow the ground Nos. 1 to 3 for statistical purposes. 8. Since, we have remanded the issue to the file of the ld CIT(A) to decide the case on merit the other ground on merit are not adjudicated. 9. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on : 23/03/2023. -Sd/- -Sd/- ( B.R.R. KUMAR ) (YOGESH KUMAR US) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 23/03/2023 *AK Keot/ MEHTA* Copy forwarded to :- 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI