Puneet Kulthia, Delhi V. ITO, Ward- 61(2), New Delhi

ITA 2041/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9560 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 22-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.2041/Del/2018 [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Puneet Kulthia, 54, First Floor, North Ex, Model Town, New Delhi-110009. PAN-AMGPK3119E vs ITO, Ward-61(2), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Parnav Yadav, Adv. Respondent by Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 22.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 30.09.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2014- 15 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)-20, New Delhi dated 28.02.2018. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- “On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT (A) erred. 1. In confirming the addition of Rs.29,87,424/- made by the Ld. A.O. in the total income of the assessee, whereas all the relevant documents were being duly been submitted by the assessee before the Assessing officer as well as to Ld. CIT(A). 2. That the appellant may be allowed to add, alter, delete, or amend any ground of appeal if considered necessary at the time of hearing of appeal. 1. That the appellant prays that the demand confirmed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) may kindly be deleted.” Page | 2 2. The only effective ground in this appeal raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of addition of Rs. 29,87,424/-. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE 3. Brief facts of the case are that case of the assessee was picked up for scrutiny assessment and the assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was framed vide order dated 30.12.2016. The Assessing Officer (“AO”) noticed that during the year under consideration, the assessee had sold 14,000 shares of M/s. Lifeline Drugs & Pharma Limited on BSE and payment was received from the broker, M/s. SMC Global Securities Ltd. The AO noticed that the shares were purchased at Rs.6/- Per share and within 18 months, the shares were sold at Rs.220/- per share. Therefore, the AO noticed that there was astronomical rise in the value of the shares, made addition of Rs.29,87,424/- treating the transaction as a colourable device. 4. Aggrieved against this, the assessee preferred appeal before Ld.CIT(A), who after considering the submissions, dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved against the order of Ld.CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the AO is not justified in making the addition and the AO has used third party evidences which are not related to the assessee without giving opportunity to rebut the evidences. 7. On the contrary, Ld. Sr. DR opposed these submissions and supported the orders of the authorities below. Page | 3 8. I have heard Ld. Counsel for the assessee & Ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. It is transpired from the assessment order that the AO has considered the evidences related to various parties. However, I find merit in the contention of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that these evidences did not relate to the assessee and the assessee was not given opportunity to rebut these evidences. Therefore, looking to the material available on record, I am of the considered view that the AO ought to have brought specific evidences against the assessee and the evidences collected at the back of the assessee ought to have been confronted with the assessee. Therefore, I hereby set aside the orders of the authorities below and restore the issue to the file of AO to make assessment afresh after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, Ground No.1 raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. 9. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30 th September, 2022. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI