Need Tally
for Clients?

Contact Us! Here

  Tally Auditor

License (Renewal)
  Tally Gold

License Renewal

  Tally Silver

License Renewal
  Tally Silver

New Licence
  Tally Gold

New Licence
 
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
« From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Inordinate delay in income tax appeal hearings
 Income Tax leviable on Tuition Fee in the Year of Rendering of Services: ITAT
 Supreme Court invoked its power under Article 142 of Constitution to validate notices issued under section 148 as notices issued under section 148A. However the same shall be subject to amended provisions of section 149.
 ITAT refuses to stay tax demand on former owner of Raw Pressery brand
 Bombay HC sets aside rejection of refund claims by GST authorities
 [Income Tax Act] Faceless Assessment Scheme does not take away right to personal hearing: Delhi High Court
 Rajasthan High Court directs GST Authority to Unblock Input Tax Credit availed in Electronic Credit Ledger
 Sebi-taxman fight over service tax dues reaches Supreme Court
 Delhi High Court Seeks Status Report from Centre for Appointments of Chairperson & Members in Adjudicating Authority Under PMLA
 Delhi High Court allows Income Tax Exemption to Charitable Society running Printing Press and uses Profit so generated for Charitable Purposes
 ITAT accepts Lease Income as Business Income as Business Investments were mostly in nature of Properties

Sunita Garg, 112, Swastik Apartments, Sector-13,Rohini, Delhi – 110 085 vs. Ito, Ward 39(4), New Delhi
October, 30th 2018
               IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL

                  (DELHI BENCH `SMC' : NEW DELHI)

              BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER


                          ITA No. 6405/Del/2018
                         Assessment Year: 2010-11

SUNITA GARG,                                  VS.   ITO, WARD 39(4),
112, SWASTIK APARTMENTS,                            NEW DELHI
SECTOR-13,
ROHINI,
DELHI ­ 110 085
(PAN: AAGPG3789G)


(APPELLANT)                                   (RESPONDENT)

                  Assessee by : Ms. Meenu Agarwal, Adv.
                  Revenue by : Sh. Pradeep Kumar Meel. Sr. DR.

                                    ORDER







        This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the Order
dated        30.7.2018   of   the   Ld.   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax
(Appeals)-13, New Delhi relevant to assessment year 2010-11.
2.      The grounds raised in the appeal read as under:-

        1.      On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in

        law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in upholding the action of

        Assessing Officer and confirming the additions u/s 68 on

        account of cash deposits in bank account of the appellant.

        2.       The learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate and ought to

        have held that cash deposited in bank account of assessee is

        due to sales made by the assessee during the disputed period.
                                   2


      3.      That the learned CIT(A) failed to consider the reasons

      for not producing the documents before learned assessing

      officer before rejecting the plea to file documents under Rule

      46A of the Income Tax Rules by the appellant

      4.      That the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the reason

      provided in appeal filed via form 35 for non-adherence to the

      notices sent by the learned assessing officer

      5.      That the learned CIT(A) rejected the application for

      submitting documents under Rule 46A on the basis that it was

      not in proper application, though the provisions of Rule 46A

      does not provide for any specific format.

      6. The Appellant therefore prays that AO be directed to delete

      the additions made on account of cash deposits u/s 68 of the

      Income Tax Act, 1961 by considering the cash deposits are

      related to business of the appellant

      7.      Without considering the facts, assessment order    was
      issued at an income at Rs. 16,26,615/- as against the NIL
      taxable income vide appellant order u/s. 250(6) of the Act and
      a demand of Rs. 8,38,831/- has been raised u/s. 156 of the
      Act.


      8.      The appellant craves leave to add, alter and / or amend
      all or any of the foregoing grounds of appeal.


3.    Facts narrated by the revenue authorities are not disputed by
both the parties, hence, the same are not repeated here for the sake
of brevity.
                                   3


4.    During the hearing, Ld. A.R. of the assessee, has stated that
AO has passed the exparte order dated 30.11.2017 u/s. 147/144 of
the Income Tax Act, without giving sufficient opportunity to the
assessee.   He further submitted that even the Ld. CIT(A) has also
rejection the application for submitting    documents under Rule 46A
on the basis that it was not in proper application, though the
provisions of Rule 46A does not provide for any specific format.
5.    On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the orders of the
authorities below.
6.    I have heard both the parties and perused the records. I

have also gone through the order passed by the revenue authorities

as well as the contention raised by the assessee in the grounds of

appeal. I find force in the arguments of the Ld. Counsel of the

assessee that AO has completed the assessment vide exparte order

dated 30.11.2017 u/s. 147/144          of the Income Tax Act, without

giving sufficient opportunity to the assessee.         I further find

considerable cogency in the contention       of the assessee's counsel

that even the Ld. CIT(A) has also rejected the application for

submitting documents under Rule 46A on the basis that it was not in

proper application, though the provisions of Rule 46A does not

provide for any specific format. Therefore, in the interest of justice,

the issues in dispute are set aside to the file of the AO to decide the

afresh under the law, after giving adequate opportunity of being

heard to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to file all the

necessary documents to substantiate his case and fully cooperate
                                4







with the AO in the proceedings and did not take any unnecessary

adjournment.

7.   In the result, the Assessee's   appeal is allowed for statistical
purposes.
     Order pronounced on 29-10-2018.

                                                     Sd/-

                                                  (H.S. SIDHU)
                                               JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : 29-10-2018

SR BHATANGAR

Copy forwarded to:

     1.Appellant
     2.Respondent
     3.CIT
     4.CIT(A), New Delhi.
     5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi.                                AR, ITAT
                                                       NEW DELHI.
5

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2024 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting