Sakldip Kumar, Delhi V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-52(2), New Delhi

ITA 2988/DEL/2023

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 100 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4565 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-12-2023
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 22-10-2023
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAKLDIP KUMAR ASSESSEE
• Section: 143(2)

Judgement Text

1 ITA No. 2988/Del/2023 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 2988/DEL/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sakldip Kumar, S-7/304 M.S. Apartment Hostel, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi-110001. PAN- ALIPK3095L Vs Income-tax Officer, Ward-52(2), New Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Sakldip Kumar (Assessee) Respondent by Shri Om Parkash, Sr. DR Date of hearing 21.12.2023 Date of pronouncement 21.12.2023 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 24.08.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. That under the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellate order passed by the Ld. CIT (A) is illegal being against the principles of natural justice and against the provisions of IT Act, 1961. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in making addition of Rs. 37,65,500/- on account of cash deposit by the assessee 2 ITA No. 2988/Del/2023 during the year under consideration without giving any proper opportunity of heard. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO has grossly erred on facts as well as in law in rejecting the Income of the assessee under the head Income from Business and professional. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A)/AO has grossly erred in law and in concluding that the cash deposit by the appellant during the year under consideration as Unexplained Money by rejecting the submission and evidence submitted by the appellant during the course of the assessment proceedings. 5. That the CIT(A)/AO grossly erred in law by applying provisions of section retrospectively. 6. That the appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify and withdraw any ground of appeal before or during the appellate proceedings.” Facts, in brief, are that in this case the assessee had filed original return of income on 5.8.2017, declaring income at Rs. 5,19,830/-. The case was selected for scrutiny through CASS. Accordingly, a notice u/s 143(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) was issued. The AO noticed that there was cash deposit of Rs. 37,65,500/- in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee was asked to explain the source of such cash deposit. Before the AO it was stated that he cash deposit was the professional receipts received by the assessee as he was doing part time profession of accountancy. The AO did not accept this contention and made addition of the entire amount. Thus, assessed income at Rs. 40,35,330/-. Aggrieved against this the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A) who sustained the addition 3 ITA No. 2988/Del/2023 and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Now the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee appeared in person and submitted that the authorities below failed to appreciate the facts in right perspective. The assessee had given confirmation from the clients. However, without verifying the veracity of the confirmation, the AO purely on surmises made the addition. He contended that the matter may be restored to the file of AO for verification of the correctness of the claim of the assessee. Learned DR strongly opposed the submissions and submitted that the facts on record do not support the case of the assessee. He, therefore, supported the orders of the authorities below. I have heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The AO rejected the claim of the assessee without verifying the veracity of the claim. It is the contention of the assessee that he has been doing part-time accountancy. This fact needs verification. Therefore, I hereby set aside the impugned order and restore the assessment to the file of the AO for assessment afresh in accordance with law. The AO would verify the factum of part time accountancy profession carried out by the assessee during the relevant period and also would verify the correctness of the claim regarding the money received from various people. The 4 ITA No. 2988/Del/2023 assessee would provide complete addresses and details of such persons. Grounds raised in this appeal are allowed for statistical purposes. 5. Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 21.12.2023. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER *MP* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI