Surpreet Singh Suri, New Delhi V. ACIT, Central Circle- 6 , New Dlehi

MA 844/DEL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3074 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 26-05-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 20-11-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHIBENCH ‘G’, NEW DELHI Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Anubhav Sharma, Judicial Member MA No. 844/Del/2019 (in ITA No. 6536/Del/2018 : A.Y. 2014-15) Surpreet Singh Suri, C/o Sanjiv Sapra & Associates, LLP, Chartered Accountants, C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi-110025 Vs ACIT, Central Circle-6, New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AOHPS9046K Assessee by : Sh. Sanjiv Sapra, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Zahid Parvez, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 27.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 29.08.2022 ORDER Per Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member: The Miscellaneous Application is arising out in ITA No. 6536/Del/2018 vide order dated 24.09.2019. The assessee pleaded that the Bench has inadvertently missed out recording of a specific finding with regard to deletion of addition of Rs.26,75,000/- on account of unexplained cash based on the findings of ld. CIT(A) as recorded vide para 5.5, which were final and had not be challenged by the Revenue. 2. In this regard, we hold that since the decision of the ld. CIT(A) has not been disputed in the order dealt only with the jewellery found and its accountability thereof, no specific finding is required. However, in the interest of justice, we clarify that the Bench had not disputed the findings of the ld. CIT(A) on this issue. MA No.844/Del/2019 Surpreet Singh Suri 2 The assessee pleaded that with regard to the addition of Rs.2,10,33,076/- on account of cash/unexplained jewellery as made by the AO confirmed by ld. CIT(A), the Tribunal give relief of 1788 gms of jewellery and sustained value to the tune 740 gms of jewellery. The assessee explained that 2470 gms of jewellery belongs to Kinty Suri the wife of the assessee which needs to be considered separately. 3. We find that this issue has been duly considered at page no. 10 of the order of the Tribunal wherein the Wealth Tax return of Surpreet Suri and Kinty Suri have been duly considered which declared total amount of 2481 gms and the fact that Kinty Suri lockers revealed jewellery of 2470 gms and the combined locker of Kinty Suri and Surpreet Suri revealed 1151 gms of jewellery. The jewellery belonging to Kinty Suri has been given due benefit of owing to the Wealth Tax Return. It is a factual matter on record, all the case laws quoted by the assessee have been duly considered before coming to a final decision. In the result, the MA of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 4. In the result, the Miscellaneous Application of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 29/08/2022. Sd/- Sd/- (Anubhav Sharma) (Dr. B. R. R. Kumar) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: 29/08/2022 *Subodh Kumar, Sr. PS* Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR