Vinod Kumar, Gurgaon V. ACIT, Circle- 4(1), Gurgaon

ITA 3410/DEL/2018

AI Insights

This case involves an appeal by Vinod Kumar against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon, which sustained an addition of Rs. 12,56,239 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 2014-15. The addition was initially made by the Assessing Officer under sections 69A and 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961, based on a cash flow statement that allegedly misrepresented a negative cash balance as a positive one. The CIT (A) upheld this addition, leading to the current appeal. The Tribunal found merit in the assessee's contention regarding the misreading of the cash flow statement and remanded the matter for a detailed re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 112834 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: PartlyAllowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 06-12-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 08-07-2022
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3); 143(1); 69A

Judgement Text

1 ITA. 3410/Del/2018 Vinod Kumar, Gurgaon IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL [ DELHI BENCH : “F” NEW DELHI ] BEFORE DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 3410/DEL/2018 (A.Y 2014-15) Vinod Kumar, CW-66, Malibu Towne, Sohna Road, Gurgaon, Haryana – 122 018. PAN No. AKRPK2520N (APPELLANT) Vs. ACIT, Circle : 4 (1) Gurgaon. (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-1, Gurgaon [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals) dated 12.02.2018 for assessment year 2014-15. Assessee by N o n e; Department by Shri K. K. Mishra, Sr. D. R.; Date of Hearing 07.12.2022 Date of Pronouncement 13.12.2022 2 ITA. 3410/Del/2018 Vinod Kumar, Gurgaon 2. The assessee has raised the following substantive grounds of appeal:- “1. The CIT(A) has passed the order which is bad in law and against the facts of the case. 2. The CIT [A] has erred to sustain the AO order for Rs.1256239/- without any verification of facts and levy of tax u/s 115 BBE. 3. The addition of Rs.1256239/- sustained is based on wrong notion as well as wrong reading of cash flow statement produced before AO where the negative balance of cash of Rs.201000 was considered as Rs. 1301000/- 4. Ld. CIT [A] has erred to enhance income which was against the principles of natural justice and without affording adequate opportunity. J 5. The said addition on account of enhancement was due to noting of incorrect facts, therefore, addition of Rs. 150סס00/- may please be deleted. The above ground s are without prejudice to each other.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that, the return declaring income of Rs. 60,60,012/- has been filed and the return was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act 1961 (‘Act’ for Short). The assessment proceedings initiated against the assessee and Assessment Order u/s 143(3) of the Act was passed on 29/12/2016 by adding income of Rs. 7,14,616/- as income calculating at 8% on a turnover of the assessee amounting to Rs. 89,32,700/-. The addition of Rs.13,01,000/- was made u/s. 69A of the Act r.w.s 115BBE of the Act and 3 ITA. 3410/Del/2018 Vinod Kumar, Gurgaon levied tax of Rs. 3,90,300/- on addition u/s. 69A of the Act as per Se. 155BBE of the Act. 4. As against the assessment order dated 29-12-2016, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) vide order dated 12/02/2018 confirmed the assessment order. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee has preferred the present appeal. 6. The gist of the grounds of Appeal of the Assessee are that the addition of Rs. 12,56,239/- was sustained based on wrong notion as well as wrong reading of cash flow statement produced before the A.O. wherein the negative balance of cash of Rs. 2,01,000/- was considered as 13,01,000/-. The addition on account of enhancement was also due to noting all incorrect facts. 7. The Ld. DR has fairly submitted that the issue involved in the Appeal may be remanded to the file of Ld. CIT (A) for fresh verification of the facts for consideration of the contention of the assessee. 8. In view of the above circumstances, we remand the issue involved in the present appeal to the file of CIT (A) for verification of cash flow statement produced by the assessee and pass appropriate order in accordance with law after hearing the assessee. Accordingly, we partly allow the Ground No. 3 of the assessee with a direction to the CIT (A) for de-novo consideration. 4 ITA. 3410/Del/2018 Vinod Kumar, Gurgaon 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the Open Court on : 13.12.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (B. R. R. KUMAR) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : 13/12/2022 *R.N, SR. PS* Copy forwarded to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT (Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI