ACIT Circle 61(1), New Delhi , Delhi V. Nitin Goel L/H of Late. Ramesh Chand Goel , Delhi

ITA 1813/DEL/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0672 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 30-11-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Tax effect; Tax effect

Judgement Text

1 ITA no. 1813/Del/2021 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 1813/DEL/2021 [Assessment Year: 2014-15] ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi. Vs Sh. Nitin Goel L/H of late Ramesh Chand Goel, 1, 1/5, Ram Kishore road, Civil Lines, Delhi-110044 PAN: AETPG0967R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Shri T.R.Talwar, Adv. Department represented by Shri Jeetender Chand, Sr. DR Date of hearing 17.10.2022 Date of pronouncement 17.10.2022 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the Revenue, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-28, New Delhi, dated 06.07.2018, pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. The Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of security received from the staff amounting to Rs.19,26,676/- ignoring the fact that all the transactions were made in cash and the assessee has also failed to bring any material facts to the records that whole amount of Rs.19,26,676/- pertains to the earlier year. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the CIT(A) is correct in not enquiring into the genuineness of the transaction and creditworthiness of the depositor as the transactions are made in cash. 2 ITA no. 1813/Del/2021 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, whether the CIT(A) is correct in not making proper enquiries even though Rs.19,26,676/- was outstanding as on 31.03.2014. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of Kitchen Income amounting to Rs.78,50,227/- and restricting to Rs.1,88,853/-, ignoring the fact that during the course of survey proceedings, the assessee himself has submitted that there is kitchen sale. 5. On the facts and in the circumstance of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of Kitchen Sale despite the fact that the assessee has submitted that the entire kitchen sale is unaccounted income which has not been recorded in his books of accounts. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of Kitchen Income amounting To Rs.78,50,227/- and restricting to Rs.1,88,853/- by accepting the claim of the assessee that it was the counsel of the assessee who mistakenly submitted that there was no kitchen income during the year, ignoring the fact that kitchen sale was the main issue and has been asked many times and also the kitchen sale issue was found during the survey operation and hence, it cannot be a mistake 7. Without prejudice to the above, in the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of Kitchen Income amounting to Rs.78,50,227/- and restricting to Rs.1,88,853/- by estimating kitchen sale at Rs.37,77,065/- (78,50,227-40,73,162) and estimating the profit thereon@5% i.e. Rs.1,88,853/-, ignoring the GP rate of the assessee which is 27.6%. 8. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) has erred in applying net profit percentage on the kitchen sale as the entire amount was unaccounted which has been clearly submitted by the assessee during the survey proceedings 9. The appellant craves leave to add, to alter or amend any ground of appeal raised above at the time of hearing. 2. At the outset learned authorized representative for the assessee Shri T.R. Talwar, advocate, stated that the Revenue has challenged the same order dated 06.07.2018 for the assessment year 2014-15 in ITA no. 6128/Del/2018 and the Tribunal was pleased to 3 ITA no. 1813/Del/2021 dismiss the appeal on the ground of low tax effect vide order d07.02.2022. Learned authorized representative further pointed out that the order passed in ITA no. 6128/Del/2018 was against Shri Ramesh Chand Goel, who had expired on 16.05.2021 and this fact was brought to the notice of the Tribunal vide letter dated 12.1.2021 in the cross-objection filed by the assessee. 3. Learned DR could not controvert the submissions of the learned counsel for the assessee. 4. We have heard the parties. We find that this Tribunal in ITA no. 6128/Del/2018 had dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on account of low tax effect. However, this fact escaped the attention of the Tribunal that assessee Shri Ramesh Chand Goel had expired on 16.05.2021. There is no change into facts and circumstances as the tax effect is lower than the prescribed limit in the case of Revenue’s appeal. Therefore, even otherwise also the appeal would not be maintainable. However, it is clarified that the Revenue may file misc. application for necessary rectification in the cause title of ITA no. 6128/Del/2018. 5. Appeal of the Revenue is, therefore, dismissed being not maintainable. Order pronounced in open court during the course of hearing on 17.10.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA) (KUL BHARAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 4 ITA no. 1813/Del/2021 *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI