Shri Dinesh Gaur, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2752/DEL/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6908 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 3
• Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BL GUPTA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC - 3 , NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 2752 /DEL/201 5 AY: 20 09 - 10 SH. DINESH GAUR VS. ITO R/O 103, PALIKA BAZAAR WARD 31(1) CP, NEW DELHI 110 018 NEW DELHI PAN: AADPG 5656 M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI BL GUPTA, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SH. ANIL SHARMA, SR.D.R. O R D E R THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) - 18, NEW DELHI ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED IN. ( 1 ) UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,47,500/ - MADE U/S 68. THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO UNJUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION EVEN WITHOUT CONSIDERING AND EXAMINING THE DETAILED EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGARD REGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT. ( 2 ) UPHOLDING THE ADDITION OF RS.16,47,500/ - EVEN WITHOUT REJECTING THE EXPLANATION AND SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT AND ALSO WITHOUT FINDING THE SAME AS FALSE. ( 3 ) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,25,000/ - EVEN WITHOUT FINDING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNTRUE. ( 4 ) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,07,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN FROM KOMAL GAUR EVEN THOUGH ADMITTING THAT THE MONEY HAD COME FROM KOMAL GAUR AND WHO WAS SEPARATELY ASSESSED TO TAX IN HER OWN PERSONAL CAPACITY. ( 5 ) SUSTAINING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS AS ABOVE WITHOUT GIVING THE REASONS AND BASIS AND ALSO WITHOUT ANY REASONS TO HOLD THAT 2 THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORILY WHEREAS SUCH ADHOC REJECTION OF THE EXPLANATION IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. ( 6 ) HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY INCOME FROM TUTION WITHOUT ANY REASON BASIS AND EVIDENCE AND ALSO WITHOUT FINDING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE AND ALSO WITHOUT FINDING THE SAME AS INCORRECT. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVID UAL AND HIS INCOME CONSISTS OF SALARY FROM M/S M ENZ , TUITION INCOME, COMMISSION AND AGRICULTURAL AND OTHER SOURCES. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.1.2010. THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 7.12.20 1 0 DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.25,82,976/ - INTER ALIA MAKING AN ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE U S. 3. AFTER HEARING RIVAL CONTENTIONS , I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROPERLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. AT PAGE 9 AND 10 OF THE ASSESSE E S PAPER BOOK, CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.08 T O 31.3.09 HAS BEEN FILED. THIS CASH FLOW STATEMENT SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O. HENCE IN MY VIEW THE PRINCIPLE S OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE BEEN VIOLATED IN THIS CASE. 4. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW . 3 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 2 N D SEPTEMBER, 2016. S D / - (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 2 2 N D SEPTEMBER, 2016 M ANGA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1 . APPELLANT 2 . RESPONDENT 3 . CIT 4 . CIT(A) 5 . DR, ITAT - TRUE COPY - BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR