Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1955 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Duration Of Justice
5 year(s) 1 month(s) 13 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
05-05-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
SMC
Next Hearing Date
04-05-2017
Assessment Year
2007-2008
Appeal Filed On
23-03-2015
Judgement Text
1 ITA NO. 1636 & 1637/DEL/2015 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT ME MBER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDIC IAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1636/DEL/2015 ( A .Y 2007-08) S HIV KUMAR NAYYAR 2B/12, EAST PUNJABI BAGH NEW DELHI AAFPN7449D (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-25(3) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 1637/DEL/2015 ( A.Y 2007-08) NEETU NAYYAR 2B/12, EAST PUNJABI BAGH NEW DELHI AAFPN7484A (APPELLANT) VS ITO WARD-25(3) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SALIL AGGARWAL, ADV RESPONDENT BY SH. SARAS KUMAR, SR. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM THESE TWO APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 06/1/2015 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XIV, NEW DELHI FOR ASSES SMENT YEARS 2007-08. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER :- ( ITA NO. 1636/DEL/2015) 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING AN ORD ER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/ 143(3) OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 18, 39, 120/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 3, 21, 741/-. DATE OF HEARING 17.02.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 05.05.2020 2 ITA NO. 1636 & 1637/DEL/2015 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE IN ITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND, FURTHER COMPLETIO N OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SATISFYING TH E STATUTORY PRE-CONDITIONS FOR INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND, COMPLETION O F ASSESSMENT UNDER THE ACT. ' 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 6, 91 , 875/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE COMMERCIAL PR OPERTY AT INDIRAPURAM HABITAT CENTRE, GHAZIABAD. 3.1. THAT IN DOING SO, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE BASIC FACT THAT THE SA ID INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 6, 91, 875/- WAS DULY EXPLAINED TO HAVE BEEN MA DE OUT OF CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE - APPELLANT AND IN ORDE R TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME, COPY OF CASH FLOW STATEMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A) BOTH, BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN ARBITRARILY BRU SHED ASIDE BY LEARNED CIT (A) ON BASIS OF MERE SUBJECTIVE OPINION, WHICH IS W HOLLY UNTENABLE IN LAW AND AS SUCH, THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3.2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE AFORESAID ADDITION ON IRREL EVANT AND EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ADVERSE MAT ERIAL AND EVIDENCE AND AS SUCH THE AFORESAID ADDITION IS PURELY BASED ON S URMISES AND CONJECTURES AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS . 8, 25, 505/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ADDITION TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE - APPELLANT. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FIL ED COMPLETE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH ESTABLISHES THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH LED TO ADDITION IN CAPITAL AMOUNT OF RS. 8, 25, 505/-, AS SUCH, BURDEN WHICH LAY 3 ITA NO. 1636 & 1637/DEL/2015 UPON THE APPELLANT HAS DULY BEEN DISCHARGED AND THU S, ADDITION MADE AND SUSTAINED WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE, IS UNSUSTAINABLE AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND DESERVES TO B E DELETED. 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY DENYING DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 80C OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 50, 000/-. 6. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (APPEALS ) TAX HAS FURTHER ERRED IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING TO THE ASSESSEE, A FAIR, PROPER AND MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, VIOLATIN G THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THUS SUCH AN ORDER OF CIT (A) IS VITIAT ED BOTH ON FACT AND IN LAW. 7. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A AND SECTION 234B OF THE ACT, WHICH INTEREST IS NOT LEVI ABLE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. ITA NO. 1636/DEL/2015 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) HAS GROSSLY ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147/ 143(3) OF THE ACT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 19, 61, 370/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 3, 13, 955/-. 2. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE INITIATI ON OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND, FURTHER COMPLETION OF A SSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)/147 OF THE ACT WITHOUT SATISFYING THE STATUT ORY PRE-CONDITIONS FOR INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND, COMPLETION OF AS SESSMENT UNDER THE ACT. 3. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS. 6, 91 , 875/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE COMMERCIAL PR OPERTY AT INDIRAPURAM HABITAT CENTRE, GHAZIABAD. 3.1. THAT IN DOING SO, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE BASIC FACT THAT THE SA ID INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO 4 ITA NO. 1636 & 1637/DEL/2015 RS. 6, 91, 875/- WAS DULY EXPLAINED TO HAVE BEEN MA DE OUT OF CASH BALANCE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE - APPELLANT AND IN ORDE R TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SAME, COPY OF CASH FLOW STATEMENTS WERE FILED BEFORE LEAR NED ASSESSING OFFICER AND CIT (A) BOTH, BUT THE SAME HAS BEEN ARBITRARILY BRU SHED ASIDE BY LEARNED CIT (A) ON BASIS OF MERE SUBJECTIVE OPINION, WHICH IS W HOLLY UNTENABLE IN LAW AND AS SUCH, THE ADDITION DESERVES TO BE DELETED. 3.2 THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE AFORESAID ADDITION ON IRREL EVANT AND EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS, WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ADVERSE MAT ERIAL AND EVIDENCE AND AS SUCH THE AFORESAID ADDITION IS PURELY BASED ON S URMISES AND CONJECTURES AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION OF RS . 9, 55, 542/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ADDITION TO THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSE SSEE - APPELLANT. 4.1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT H AS FILED COMPLETE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH ESTABLISHES THE GENUINE NESS OF THE TRANSACTION WHICH LED TO ADDITION IN CAPITAL AMOUNT OF RS. 9, 5 5, 542-, AS SUCH, BURDEN WHICH LAY UPON THE APPELLANT HAS DULY BEEN DISCHARG ED AND THUS, ADDITION MADE AND SUSTAINED WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE, IS UNSUSTAINABLE AND CONTRARY TO LAW AND DESERVES TO B E DELETED. 5. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS BY DENYING DEDUCTION UNDER SECT ION 80C OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 72, 546/-. 6. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME (APPEALS ) TAX HAS FURTHER ERRED IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PROVIDING TO THE ASSESSEE, A FAIR, PROPER AND MEANINGFUL OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, VIOLATIN G THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THUS SUCH AN ORDER OF CIT (A) IS VITIAT ED BOTH ON FACT AND IN LAW. 7. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) HAS ERRED BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A AND 5 ITA NO. 1636 & 1637/DEL/2015 SECTION 234B OF THE ACT, WHICH INTEREST IS NOT LEVI ABLE ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 3. FIRSTLY WE ARE TAKING UP THE BRIEF FACTS OF ITA NO. 1636/DEL/2015. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED AN INFORMATION FROM ADIT (INV), UNIT-III(3), DELHI THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN CASH FOR THE PURCHA SE OF A COMMERCIAL SPACE AT INDIRAPURAM HABITED CENTRE, GHAZIABAD. IN FACT, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON M/S AEZ GROUP (PART OF AERENS GROUP) OF COMPANIES ON 17.08.2011 AND DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH OPERATIONS, CERTAIN DISKS, LOOSE PAPERS WERE SIZED. DURING THE COURSE O F INVESTIGATION, IT WAS GATHERED THAT AEZ GROUP WAS CONSTRUCTING VARIOUS PR OJECTS AND SOLD COMMERCIAL SPACES TO VARIOUS PARTIES AFTER RECEIVIN G CASH PAYMENTS. SUCH CASH PAYMENTS WERE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF REL EVANT COMPANY AND THE SAME WERE ALSO FOUND TO BE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOK S OF THE INVESTORS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE INVESTORS ACCEP TED THAT THEY HAD MADE CASH PAYMENTS FOR BOOKING/PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THE AB OVE SAID PROJECT. THE AMOUNT ACCEPTED BY THEM TO HAVE BEEN PAID IN CASH E XACTLY MATCHED WITH THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED IN THE EXTRACTED SHEETS OF HARD D ISK. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE FOLLOWING DETAILS WERE FOUND TO BE RE CORDED REGARDING INVESTMENTS IN INDIRAPURAM HABITED CENTRE PROJECT, GHAZIABAD:- NAME: SHRI NEETU NAYYAR AND SHRI SHIV KUMAR NAYYA R UNIT: GROUND FLOOR, COMMERCIAL 750 SQ. FT. DATE: 16.03.2007 AMOUNT PAID BY CHEQUE: RS. 9,22,470 AMOUNT PAID BY CASH: RS. 13,83,750 TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: RS. 23,06,220 ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID INFORMATION, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ON 08.06 .2012 AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH THE DETAILS/SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS OF RS. 23,06,220/-. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED PA RT DETAILS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF COMPLETE DETAILS OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER 6 ITA NO. 1636 & 1637/DEL/2015 MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 15,17,380/- TO THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDU CTION U/S 80C FOR WANT OF EVIDENCE OF INVESTMENT AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT AT THE TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 18,39,120/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN IND IVIDUAL AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS RESIDES IN JOINT FAMILY IN THEIR OWN HOUSE AN D FILING RETURN OF INCOME REGULARLY SINCE PAST SEVERAL YEARS FOR WHICH THE FI NANCIAL STATEMENTS (SUMMARIZED) EXTRACTED HEREIN BELOW: S. NO. A.Y DATE OF RETURN FILING INCOME RETURNED (RS.) 1 2005-06 02/02/2006 201800 2 2006-07 18/12/2006 257823 3 2007-08 21/07/2007 378125 THE ADIT(INV.) UNIT-III(3), NEW DELHI INTIMATED THA T A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON AEZ GROUP(PART OF AERE NS GROUP) ON 17.08.2011 AND DURING SEARCH CERTAIN DISCS, LOOSE PAPERS WERE SEIZED. AEZ GROUP IS CONSTRUCTING VARIOUS PROJECTS AND SOLD COMMERCIAL S PACES TO DIFFERENT PARTIES RECEIVING CASH PAYMENTS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARC H/SURVEY OPERATION OF AEZ GROUP, IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY INVESTOR THAT THEY H AVE MADE CASH PAYMENTS FOR BOOKING/ PURCHASE OF PROPERTY IN THE ABOVE SAID PRO JECT. ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION THE THEN ITO AFTER RECORDING SATISFACTI ON IN WRITING, INITIATED PROCEEDING U/S 147 OF THE ACT WITH THE APPROVAL OF ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE -25, NEW DELHI AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 TO THE ASSESSEE ON 08.06.2012. ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 1 48 SUBMITTED RETURN EARLIER FILED ON DT. 21.09.2007 FOR THE IMPUGNED YE AR CONTAINING RESOURCES OF 7 ITA NO. 1636 & 1637/DEL/2015 INCOME NAMELY DIRECTOR REMUNERATION FROM M/S R.G. C ONSULTANTS PVT. LTD., RENTAL INCOME , SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND INCOME FROM OTHER AT AN TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,21,741/-. THE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONTI NUED AND AN ADDITION AMOUNTING RS. 15,17,380/- HAS BEEN ADDED COMPRISING RS. 6,91,875/- AS INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY IN CASH AND RS. 8,25,505/- A S ADDITION TO CAPITAL FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND NOT ALLOWING DEDUCTION U/S 80C AMOUNTING RS. 1,00,000/- IN ABSENCE OF ANY RECEIPT. ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN AEZ GROUP FOR PURCHASE OF HALF PORTION OF GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE IN CASH AMOUNTING RS. 6,91,875/- OUT OF CASH BALANCE LYING IN BOOKS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE FAMILY IS EARNING A HANDSOME AMOUNT EITH ER IN INDIVIDUAL PARITY OR AS HUF AND ENTIRE CASH AMOUNT IS OUT OF DISCLOSED & DECLARED SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE SAID ADDITION OVERLOOKIN G THAT OTHER MEMBERS/HUF ALSO CONTRIBUTING TO HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND THE ASS ESSEE HAS GENERATED THE CASH OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND CASH ACCOUNT FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR TO O. THE ASSESSEES C.A. ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS ON VARIOUS DATES I.E. ON 1 7.01.2013, 28.01.2013, 05.01.2013, 11.02.2013, 18.02.2013 AND 28.02.2013. HOWEVER, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S 142(1) DT. 6.3. 2013 REQUIRING CERTAIN DETAILS ON DT. 11.3.2013 TO BE FURNISHED, ASSESSEE' S C.A. FELL ILL (HIGH FEVER AND DIARRHEA) ON DT. 11.03.2013 AND WAS NOT IN A POSITI ON TO ATTEND THE CASE. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HANDED OVER THE REQUIRED DOCUMENTS TO C.A. BUT COULD NOT SUBMITTED THE SAME DUE TO ABOVEM ENTIONED FACT. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ALL THE DOCUMENTS/DETAILS REGARDING ADDITION TO CAPITAL AMOUNTING RS. 8,25,50 5/- FROM FRIENDS AND RELATIVES WAS THE SOURCE OF RECEIPT OF CAPITAL WHIC H WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE BUT DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SAME COULD NOT BE SUBMITTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON 12.03.2013 WHICH IS 19 DAYS PRIOR TO LAST DATE OF T IME BARRING I.E. 31.03.2013. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHO ULD HAVE GIVEN ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY AS THE ASSESSEE'S COUNSEL WAS APPEARING REGULARLY AND ON ONE DATE HE COULD NOT APPEAR DUE TO UNAVOIDABLE CIRCUMSTANCE S, ALL THESE 8 ITA NO. 1636 & 1637/DEL/2015 DOCUMENTS/DETAILS ARE OPEN FOR VERIFICATION. THE LD . AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED ALL THE FACTUAL EVIDENCE BEF ORE THE CIT(A) AS WELL BUT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED THE SAME. THUS, TH E LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS DOES NOT SUSTAIN. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED ALL T HE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD. AR DURING THE HEARING SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO. 2, HENCE GROUND NO. 2 IS DISMISSED. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SINCE NO WITH DRAWAL WAS SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME BY THE HUF, THEREFORE, IT IS DIFFI CULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE HUF HAS CONTRIBUTED FOR THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE A SSESSEE. BESIDES THAT THE CIT(A) ALSO REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE REQUIRED THE CASH IN HAND FOR HIS PROBABLE MEDICAL EXPENSES. BUT THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE INTRODUCTION CA PITAL OF RS. 8,25,505/- AS CAPITAL BY STATING THAT HE HAD RECEIVED MONEY FROM HIS FATHER IN LAW OF RS. 5,00,000/-, AMOUNT TRANSFERRED FROM MINOR SON SAVIN G BANK ACCOUNT OF RS. 1,41,800/-, AMOUNT TRANSFERRED FROM MINOR DAUGHTER S SAVING ACCOUNT OF RS. 23,000/-, AMOUNT TRANSFERRED FROM WIFES SAVING ACC OUNT OF RS. 63,000/- APART FROM DIVIDEND INCOME AND MUTUAL FUND RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS CIT(A) BOTH DID NOT LOOK INTO THE EVIDENCES BROU GHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) ALSO HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COGENT REASON AS TO WHY SAID ADDITION SUSTAINS. IN FACT, THE OBSERVATION OF THE CIT(A), THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS SHOWN IN RESPECT OF FATHER IN LAW AND WIFE IS INCORRECT AND NEEDS TO BE VERIFIED. THEREFORE, IT WILL BE APPROPRIATE T O REMAND BACK THIS MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE EVI DENCES WHICH WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A). THUS, WE REMAND BAC K THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AS REG ARDS TO EVIDENCE WHICH WAS BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE THE MA TTER A FRESH. NEEDLESS TO 9 ITA NO. 1636 & 1637/DEL/2015 SAY, THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING B Y FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. GROUND NO. 1, 3, 3.1, 3.2, 4, 4.1 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 5, TH E CIT(A) WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED THE DEDUCTION U/S 80C OF THE ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 0,000/-. HENCE, GROUND NO. 5 IS DISMISSED. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 6 IS G ENERAL IN NATURE HENCE DISMISSED. AS REGARDS TO GROUND NO. 7, THE SAME IS CONSEQUENTIAL, HENCE IT IS NOT ADJUDICATED UPON AT THIS JUNCTURE. THUS, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ITA NO. 1636/DEL/2015 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. AS REGARDS TO ITA NO. 1637/DEL/2015, THE FACTS O F THIS CASE IS ALSO IDENTICAL TO THE EARLIER APPEAL DECIDED HEREINABOVE . HENCE, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING ITA NO. 1637/DEL/2015 IS PARTLY ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 9. IN RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS BEING ITA NO. 1636/D EL/2015 AND ITA NO. 1637/DEL/2015 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 05 TH DAY OF MAY, 2020. SD/- SD/- (N. K. BILLAIYA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R DATED: 05/05/2020 R. NAHEED COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT 10 ITA NO. 1636 & 1637/DEL/2015 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 17.02.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 18.02.2020 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 1 3 . 0 5 . 2 0 2 0 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER
Other Referred Cases
-
Laws Referred To
-
360 Brand Audit (30 mins)
₹299
1:1 Consultation on Startup Fundraising
₹5000
1:1 Consultation on Business Development
₹1
Research Collaboration Agreement
₹0
Initial LLP Agreement
₹0
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026
Why Lacoste Won a 20-Year Trademark Battle Against Crocodile ?
Team Counselvise - March 10, 2026
Minimum Alternate Tax (MAT): Comprehensive Overview and Key Changes under Finance Bill, 2026
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026