Winky Singh , Delhi V. ITO Ward-60(2), Delhi

ITA 606/DEL/2022

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 106 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3982 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 07-04-2022
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHASHI KANT KASHYAP; TAKEN INTO
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Set aside
• Section: 154; 143(3); 250

Judgement Text

Page | 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.606/Del/2022 [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Winky Singh, C/o-Mr. Sandeep Bhatnagar, CA, Flat No.12, 2 nd Floor, Sheel Tara House, 4866/24, Ansari Road, Darya Ganj, New Delhi-110002. PAN-AMXPS8437J vs ITO, Ward-60(2), Delhi. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Shashi Kant Kashyap, CA Respondent by Shri Mrinal Kumar Das, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 19.09.2022 Date of Pronouncement 23.09.2022 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2011- 12 is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”) dated 11.03.2022. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:- 1. “The Ld. CIT(A), National faceless appeal centre (NFAC), Delhi has erred in its order u/s 250 on dated 11.03.2022. That order was passed on grounds of appeals which are not pertain to appellant. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A), National faceless appeal centre (NFAC), Delhi has allowed the appeal in favor of the appellant by taken into completely wrong grounds of appeals which are not belong to the appellant. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A), National faceless appeal centre (NFAC), Delhi appellate order vide Para 1 to Para 3 of order pertains to assessee whereas Para 4 to Para 6 end pertains to some other assessee Page | 2 resulting into wrong decision declared by the Ld. CIT(A), National faceless appeal centre (NFAC), Delhi. 4. That there's no form/column on income tax portal to file rectification of such order resulting into unnecessary filing of appeal before Hon. ITAT which costing Rs. 10,000/- as appeal fee and Rs.25,000 for professional charges to the appellant. That as above mentioned details, provide relief to the assessee or set-a-side to CIT(A), National faceless appeal centre (NFAC), Delhi. 5. That the Ld. Income Tax Officer has made*the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- on account of unexplained investment U/s 69C. That the appellant had made investment in House Property amounting to Rs.55,30,000/- at 107, Block B, Sector-6, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh. That during the assessment assessee filed copy of purchase deed of property, copy of bank accounts and also explains all requested details with supporting. That the appellant has filed the complete details of which shows genuineness of the parties except Rs. 15 Lakh as assessee was not in India at the time of completion of assessment and the father of the assessee has expired on 16.03.2016. That appellant submitted additional evidence u/s 46(A) before the CIT(A) in support of genuineness of transaction of Rs. 15 Lakh which is received by appellant from HUF of assessee father. That in the remand report, the Ld. AO had not questioned the genuineness of the transaction of Rs. 15 Lakh but only mentioned that it should be provided during the assessment proceedings. 6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, modify, any other matter.” 2. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the Ld.CIT(A) in impugned order, allowed the appeal of the assessee but the facts narrated are not related to the assessee. He took me through the para 6 of the impugned order. Page | 3 3. Ld. Sr. DR fairly conceded that there is some error in the impugned order. 4. I have heard Ld. Authorized Representatives of the parties and perused the material available on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. I find that Ld.CIT(A) has decided the appeal of the assessee by observing as under:- Decision “I have gone through the above submissions of the Appellant and have considered the facts and evidence on record. Ground No. 1: Considering the above grounds of appeal, I prima – facie agree with the contentions of the appellant that the amount of Rs. 4,90,540/- has been added under the head income from business and profession while computing income from business profession In fact this amount of Rs. 4,90,540/- pertains to income from other source. As per assessment order made u/s 143(3) of the IT. Act 1961 vide dated 20/01/2021 the AO (NeAc) has accepted the returned income filed by the appellant and has not made any addition in assessment order. However in the computation sheet the interest income amounting to Rs. 4,90,540 has been added in business income declaring total income at Rs. 35,51,76,094 instead of Rs. 35,46,85,554 under the head income from business and profession. In view of the above facts and circumstances the AO (JAO/NeAc whichever is applicable) is directed to consider the averments of the appellant and accordingly make the necessary rectification u/s 154 of the IT Act, 1961. As far as matter related to levy of higher amount of interest u/s 234C under Ground No2 it will automatically be reduced while computing business income as per returned income (ITR-6).” Page | 4 5. Since there are certain errors in the impugned order, the impugned order is set aside and the ground of appeal raised by the assessee are restored to the file of Ld.CIT(A) to decide it afresh after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Thus, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. 6. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 23 rd September, 2022. Sd/- (KUL BHARAT) JUDICIAL MEMBER * Amit Kumar * Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI