DCIT, New Delhi V. M/s Delhi Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2121/DEL/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8690 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 7 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ASHISH
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 2121/Del/2017 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 2121/DEL/2017 ( A.Y 2012-13) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) DCIT Circle-7(1), Room No. 403, C. R. Building New Delhi (APPELLANT) Vs Delhi Diamonds Pvt. Ltd. 3126/33, Beadon Pura, Saaswati Marg, Karol Bagh, New Delhi AADCD3675Q (RESPONDENT) Appellant by Sh. Ved Jain, CA, Sh. Ashish Goel, CA Respondent by Sh. Umesh Takyar, Sr. DR ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 20/1/2017 passed by CIT(A)-3, New Delhi for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. The grounds of appeal are as under:- “1. "Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts and in the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 3,67,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act." 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts and in the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- made by the AO u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act." 3. "Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and on the facts and in the case in deleting the addition of Rs. 96,337/- made by the AO for want of details." 3. The assessee Company is primarily in the business of trading and Date of Hearing 11.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement 12.11.2021 2 ITA No. 2121/Del/2017 jewellery items. The assessee company filed its return of income on 14/9/2012 for the Assessment Year declaring an income of Rs. 1,19,04,440/-. The Assessing Officer disallowed Rs. 3,67,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Act. The Assessing Officer also made addition of Rs. 30,00,000/- u/s 68 thereby treating the said income as income from undisclosed sources as well as disallowed Rs. 96,337/- in respect of claim of ROC fees to certain extent. 4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. 5. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee has not produced all the relevant material before the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings. The CIT(A) has not given opportunity to the Assessing Officer to confront the evidences placed before him. Thus, Ground No.1 of the Revenue’s appeal be considered and allowed. As regards Ground No. 2, the Ld. DR relied upon the assessment order. As regards Ground No. 3, the Ld. DR submitted that due to the smallness of the amount, the same is not pressed. 6. The Ld. AR submitted that as regards Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal all the details were given to the Assessing Officer but the same was not taken in proper spirit while framing assessment order. The CIT(A) has taken all the cognizance of each of the 9 parties and given a proper relief. Hence, the Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). As regards Ground No.2, the Ld. AR relied upon the order of the CIT(A). 7. We have heard both the parties and perused the material available on record. As regards Ground No. 1 of the Revenues’ appeal, the CIT(A) has taken cognizance of all the evidences produced before the Assessing Officer at the stage of assessment itself. In fact, the details of Shri Murari Lal Soni and Shri Mukesh Soni shows that both the parties had enough funds to contribute the share capital to their unit Delhi Diamond Pvt. Ltd. Their source of contribution 3 ITA No. 2121/Del/2017 to share capital was also explained by them as well as by the assessee before the Assessing Officer. It is further noticed that the share holders as well as their source of income/funds are fully identifiable, genuine and the creditworthiness of each party was never doubted by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, there is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT(A). Hence, Ground No. 1 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. As regards Ground No. 2 the same is also dealt properly by the CIT(A) as per the evidences produced before the Assessing Officer. In fact, the Assessing Officer has not taken into account the evidences produced by the assessee during the assessment proceedings. Thus, there is no need to interfere with the same. Hence, Ground No. 2 of the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed. As regards Ground No. 3, the same is not pressed, hence dismissed. 8. In result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court in presence of both the parties on this 12 th Day of November, 2021 sd/- sd/- (B. R. R. KUMAR) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 12/11/2021 R. Naheed Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI 4 ITA No. 2121/Del/2017