Sh. Rajbir Singh, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

ITA 640/CHANDI/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5156 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-04-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJIT SINGH
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Peak credit

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCHB, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.640/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SH. RAJBIR SINGH VS. THE ITO S/O SH. SURINDER SINGH WARD 1(3) R/O H.NO. 1670, SECTOR-7C CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AWDPS2536E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SH. NAVDEEP MONGA REVENUE BY : SH. MANJIT SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 21/03/2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22/03/2018 ORDER PER B.R.R. KUMAR A.M. THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A GAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), CHANDIGARH DT. 19/01/2017. 2. IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS: I. THAT LD. CIT (APPEALS)-I, CHANDIGARH HAS ERRED IN L AW AND ON FACTS, IN CONFIRMING THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS 16,36,700/- AS AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.1,73,740/-. II. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-I, CHANDIGARH HAS ERRED IN CALCULATING THE PEAK CREDIT AS RS 14,04,500/-. III. THAT ON LAW, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, T HE LD. CIT (APPEALS)-I, CHANDIGARH HAS ERRED IN CALCULATING A PROFIT OF 5% ON ALLEGED TOTAL TURNOVER OF RS 58,44,000/- AS RS 2,92,200/-. HOWEVER, AFTER DEDUCT ING RS 60,000/- IT WOULD COME TO RS 2,32,200 ON ACCOUNT OF CAR SALE. IV. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18.01.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS HIGHLY EXCESSIVE, UNREASONABLE AND UNJUS TIFIED AND OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. FURTHER, IT H AS BEEN MADE WITHOUT RESORTING TO PROPER PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2 3. GROUND NO.2 & 3 OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO ERRO R IN THE CALCULATION OF PEAK CREDIT AND ALSO NOT GIVING DUE BENEFIT TO THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. DURING THE ARGUMENT BEFORE US, WE OBSERVE THAT T HE BENEFIT OF THE PEAK CREDIT, OPENING BALANCE AND THE WITHDRAWALS HAVE NO T BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THUS IT IS A FACTUAL ERROR ON TH E FACE OF THE RECORD. HENCE THE CASE IS BEING SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER TO COMPUTE THE PEAK CREDIT CORRECTLY AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION TH E OPENING BALANCE AND THE WITHDRAWALS. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (B.R.R.KU MAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 22/03/2018 AG COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT, TH E CIT(A), THE DR