ACIT, Central Circle- 4, New Delhi V. Sanjay Duggal, Faridabad

ITA 3532/DEL/2018

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (ACIT) against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 3, Gurgaon, which had deleted an addition of Rs.2,06,13,000 made by the assessing officer under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The addition was initially made on account of unexplained credit. The assessee, Sanjay Duggal, also filed a cross objection challenging the order sustaining the assessment under sections 147/143(3) without appreciating various legal and procedural violations. However, both the appeal and the cross objection were dismissed as infructuous following the Tribunal's decision on a related matter involving substantial additions made to another individual, which were sustained.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 130834 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 16-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 10-05-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 68; 148; 143(2)

Judgement Text

Page 1 of 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.3532/Del/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) Asst. CIT Central Circle-04 New Delhi Vs. Sh. Sanjay Duggal 3-E/42, N.I.T. Faridabad-121 001 PAN-AESPD 6712J (Appellant) (Respondent) Cross Objection No.133/Del/2018 Arising out of ITA No.3532/Del/2018 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10) Sh. Sanjay Duggal 3-E/42, N.I.T. Faridabad-121 001 PAN-AESPD 6712J Vs. Asst. CIT Central Circle-04 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Sh. Kapil Goel, Advocate Respondent by Mr. P. Praveen Sidharth, CIT-DR Date of Hearing 17/07/2023 Date of Pronouncement 20/07/2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM: This appeal by Revenue is filed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Gurogaon [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 27.02.2018 for Assessment Year 2009-10. The Cross Objection has also been filed by the assessee. ITA No.3539/Del/2018 & C.O.133/Del/2018 ACIT vs. Sanjay Duggal Page 2 of 6 2. The following grounds has been raised by the Revenue as well as assessee: ITA No.3532/Del/2018 “1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A) is not correct in law and facts. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in law and on facts in deleting the addition of Rs.2,06,13,000/- made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained credit under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. The appellant craves leave to add, amend any/all the grounds of appeal before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” Cross Objection No.133/Del/2018 “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT- A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that assumption of jurisdiction u/s 148 was by Ld AO was in violation of jurisdictional conditions stipulated under the Act; 1.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that "rubber stamp" reasons in present case are based on borrowed satisfaction and are without independent application of mind; 1.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that no back material, repeatedly asked was confronted / provided to assessee thus invalidating entire reopening; 1.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ed AO us 147/143(3) without appreciating that assessment u's 147/148 cannot be made when search was conducted u/s 132, as strictly excluded u/s 153A/1538/153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961; 1.4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. Ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO us ITA No.3539/Del/2018 & C.O.133/Del/2018 ACIT vs. Sanjay Duggal Page 3 of 6 147/143(3) without appreciating that none of the assessee submission is appreciated while adjudicating the appeal; 1.5 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. Id CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO us 147/143(3) without appreciating that the appellant was never provided with the copy of reasons along with copy / form of approval from Pr CIT and the material / information relied upon before passing the final assessment order, which has invalidated the entire proceedings; 1.6 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. Id CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO us 147/143(3) without appreciating that notice u/s 143(2) asued without waiting for GKN Driveshaft procedure to be exhausted is invalid. Further the Ld AD after assuming the jurisdiction transferring records ITO Ward 2(1) to DCIT-CC-1, Faridabad, no notice u/s 143(2) was issued thereafter. which invalidated the entire proceedings; 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT- A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that on basis of surfeit and inundated evidences on records burden u/s 68 lying on assessee has been fully discharged and met so addition made by Ld AD ( 206 13.000.00) and confirmed by CIT-A in impugned order deserves to be deleted; 2.1 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law. d CIT-A ered in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO us 147/143(3) without appreciating that there is no valid basis of any of the addition of 206,13,000.00; 2.2 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, id CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AD us 147/143/31 without appreciating that all the additions made are without bringing any case specific and transaction specific material on records; 2.3 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, id CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO us 147/143/3) without appreciating that no meaningful enquiry was made by Ld AD which is sufficient to strike down the additions made; 2.4 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by td AD us 147/143(3) without appreciating that no bank statements on the basis of which additions has been made were never provided to the assessee; ITA No.3539/Del/2018 & C.O.133/Del/2018 ACIT vs. Sanjay Duggal Page 4 of 6 2.5 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law id CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AD us 147/143/3) without appreciating that while making addition wis 68 Ld AD has not issued any formal and required show cause notice nor Ld AO has considered detailed reply filed by the assessee; 2.6 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, id CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO us 147/143(3) without appreciating that none of evidence filed by assessee is overruled in accordance with law; 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by the Ld AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that the assessee was never provided with an opportunity of cross examination of any of officers of M/s Jagatjit Industries Ltd/ other associates on the statement of Revenue / Investigation wing has relied upon and the Ld AO has passed the impugned assessment order; 5 The on the facts and in the circumstances of the case in law. Ld CIT(A) erred in sustaining the orders passed by the Ld AO u/s 147/143(3) without appreciating that the no addition u/s 68 can be made merely relying upon the bank statements, which was never books of accounts of the assessee; 6 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, id CIT- A erred in not deleting the addition made by Ld AO which was also unlawful and made in violation of principles of natural justice, as no show cause notice has been issued, the bare minimum requirement for making additions under Income Tax Act, 1961 and making the assessee liable for enhanced taxation. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Id CIT-A erred in sustaining the order passed by Ld AO u/s 147/143(3) in bare violation of principles of natural justice. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add add/alter any/all grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.” ITA No.3539/Del/2018 & C.O.133/Del/2018 ACIT vs. Sanjay Duggal Page 5 of 6 3. The assessment order came to be passed on 23/12/2016 u/s 147 r.w.s.143 of the Act against the assessee by making addition of Rs.2,06,13,000/- on protective basis since the addition has been made in the hands of Arun Duggal on substantial basis. The Ld. AR and the Ld. DR submitted that the substantial addition made in the hands of Arun Duggal by the A.O. has been sustained by the Tribunal, the addition made against the assessee which is protective in nature requires to be deleted, therefore, submitted that the appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the deletion of addition in ITA No.3532/Del/2018 requires to be dismissed as it becomes in- fructuous. Consequently, Cross Objection No. 133/Del/2018 filed by the assessee challenging the order of the CIT(A) is also renders the stage of in- fructuous. 4. Recording the above submissions made by both the Ld. AR and the Ld. DR, the Revenue’s appeal filed in ITA No.3532/Del/2018 and Assessee’s Cross Objection No.133/Del/2018 are dismissed for having becoming in fructuous. Order pronounced in open Court on 20 th July, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (SHAMIM YAHYA) (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 20/07/2023 Pk/R.N. Sr. ps ITA No.3539/Del/2018 & C.O.133/Del/2018 ACIT vs. Sanjay Duggal Page 6 of 6 Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI