Ravi Kumar Verma, Uttar Pradesh v. ACIT, Mewat

ITA 2119/DEL/2016 | 2012-2013
Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2021 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 211920114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AAIPV4953F
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 2119/DEL/2016
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 4 month(s) 12 day(s)
Appellant Ravi Kumar Verma, Uttar Pradesh
Respondent ACIT, Mewat
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 31-08-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 31-08-2021
Last Hearing Date 18-03-2021
First Hearing Date 18-03-2021
Assessment Year 2012-2013
Appeal Filed On 18-04-2016
Judgment Text
1 ITA NO. 2119/DEL/2016 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEM BER AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE JUDI CIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2119/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2012-13) (THROUGH VIDEO CONFER ENCING) RAVI KUMAR VERMA C/O. PUSHKAR JAIN ADVOCATE 115-C JAIN NAGAR MERUT CITY-2 UTTAR PRADESH AAIPV4953F (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CIRCLE-2 MEWAT (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE JM THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER DATED 04/02/2016 PASSED BY CIT(A)-MEERUT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-1 3. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE AS UNDER:- 1. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW FA CT BY DISALLOWANCE RS. 575610/- WITHOUT ANY BASIS. HENCE DISALLOWANCE OF R S. ARBITRARY VERY VERY EXCESSIVE OUGHT TO BE DELETED. 2. THAT THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW & FACT BY A 7310640/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68. WHILE THE ASSESS EE MAIN CONDITION I.E. IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS. GENUINENESS OF ADDITION OF RS. 7310640/- U/S 68 UNCALLED FOR ARBITRARY VERY BE DELETED. APPELLANT BY SH. NEERAJ JAIN & PUSHKAR JAIN ADVS RESPONDENT BY SH. E. V. BHASKAR SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 09.08.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 31.08.2021 2 ITA NO. 2119/DEL/2016 3. THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER -ERRED IN LAW & FAC T BY AD 7310640/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLA NATION WHICH WAS REJECTED SUMMARILY. HENCE ADDITION OF RS.73 10 640/ - IS UNCALLED FOR ARBITRARY VERY VERY EXCESSIVE OUGHT TO BE DELETED . 4. THAT LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW & FACT BY 3 10 640/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ALREADY SHOWN TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE ASSESS HAS FURNISH ALL EVIDENCES EX PLANATION WHICH WAS REJECTED SUMMARILY. HENCE ADDITION OF RS. 3 10 640/ - IS UNCALLED FOR ARBITRARY VERY VERY EXCESSIVE OUGHT TO BE DELETED. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED INTEREST INCOME FROM P ARTNERSHIP FIRM BEING A SLEEPING PARTNER AND OTHER INCOME FROM DIFFERENT FI RMS. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.11 54 450/- ON 21/09/2012. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AT RS. 5 75 610/- AND ALSO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT 1961 AMOUNTING TO RS.73 10 640/-. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE ASS ESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE. 5. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THA T GROUND NO. 1 IS NOT PRESSED HENCE GROUND NO. 1 IS DISMISSED. 6. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW & FACT BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 73 10 640/- TO THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 OF THE ACT WHILE THE ASSESSEES MAIN CONTENTION I.E. IDENTITY CREDITWORTHINESS GENUINENESS OF ADDITION OF RS. 73 10 640/- U/S 68 UNCALLED FOR ARBITRARY AND THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEES AND THE EVIDENCES WERE REJECTED SUMM ARILY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE ADDITION OF RS.73 10 640/- IS UNCALL ED FOR ARBITRARY EXCESSIVE 3 ITA NO. 2119/DEL/2016 AND THE SAME OUGHT TO BE DELETED. THE LD. AR FURTHE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW & FACT BY MAKING ADD ITION OF RS. 3 10 640/- TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ALREADY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND FURNISHED ALL EVIDENCES EXPLAN ATION WHICH WAS REJECTED SUMMARILY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE ADDITION OF RS. 310640/- IS UNCALLED FOR ARBITRARY AS WELL AS EXCESSIVE AND THE SAME O UGHT TO BE DELETED. 6. THE LD. DR RELIED UPON THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE PARTIES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN FACT THE CONFIRMAT IONS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN PROPERLY VERIFIED IN CONSONANCE WITH THE DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THEREFORE IT WI LL BE APPROPRIATE TO REMAND BACK THIS ENTIRE ISSUE FROM GROUND NO. 2 TO 4 TO TH E FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION AND WE DIRECT THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE PRESENCE OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE SA ID AMOUNT AND EXPLAIN THE CREDITWORTHINESS GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING BY FOLLOWING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THEREFORE THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. IN RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31ST D AY OF AUGUST 2021. SD/- SD/- (R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED : 31/08/2021 R. NAHEED * 4 ITA NO. 2119/DEL/2016 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI