Latest Expert Exchange Queries
sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
 
 
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Service Tax | Sales Tax | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Indirect Tax | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing
 
 
 
 
Popular Search: empanelment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARDS :: ARTICLES ON INPUT TAX CREDIT IN VAT :: VAT RATES :: VAT Audit :: TDS :: list of goods taxed at 4% :: cpt :: TAX RATES - GOODS TAXABLE @ 4% :: form 3cd :: due date for vat payment :: ACCOUNTING STANDARD :: articles on VAT and GST in India :: Central Excise rule to resale the machines to a new company :: ICAI offer Get Windows 7,Office 2010 in Rs.799 Taxes
 
 
From the Courts »
 Ravneet Takhar Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax Ix And Ors.
 Jaiprakash Associates Ltd. Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax
 Formula One World Championship Limited Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, International Taxation-3 And Anr.
 Commissioner Of Income Tax International Taxation-3 Delhi Vs. Formula One World Championship Ltd. And Anr.
 Reliance Communications Ltd vs. DDIT (ITAT Mumbai)
  Sushila Devi vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
 Ashok Prapann Sharma vs. CIT (Supreme Court)a
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
  Vatsala Shenoy vs. JCIT (Supreme Court)
 M.K.Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr.Commissioner Of Income Tax-06
 Arshia Ahmed Qureshi Vs. Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax-21

Sabir Amin Rahman, KD-17, Kavi Nagar, Ghaziabad. Vs. DCIT Circle-6(1), New Delhi.
March, 11th 2015
                                            1
                                                                      3548/Del/2011

            IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                  DELHI BENCH "G" NEW DELHI
          BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL : VICE PRESIDENT
                             AND
           SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K.: JUDICIAL MEMBER


                           ITA no. 3548/Del/2011
                           Asstt. Yr: 2006-07

Sabir Amin Rahman,                      Vs.     DCIT Circle-6(1),
KD-17, Kavi Nagar,                              New Delhi.
Ghaziabad.
PAN: AEAPR 5367 R

( Appellant )                                        (Respondent)


                Appellant by     :      Shri Rajan Chopra FCA
                Respondent by    :      Shri B.R.R. Kumar Sr. DR

                     Date of hearing    :       04/03/2015.
                     Date of order      :       10/03/2015.

                           ORDER


PER G.D. AGRAWAL, V.P.:


      This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against CIT(A)'s order dated

28-02-2013, relating to A.Y. 2006-07.

2.    In this appeal by the assessee various grounds are raised. However,

they are all against the addition of Rs. 2,02,000/- made by the AO on

account of unexplained deposit in the bank account of the assessee.
                                          2
                                                                         3548/Del/2011






3.    At the time of hearing before us, it is submitted by the ld. counsel for

the assessee that the assessee had misc. commission and other income of Rs.

1,90,585/-. This income was received in cash and, therefore, available for

deposit in bank account. He also referred to the cash flow statement

prepared by the assessee and pointed out that as per the cash flow, sufficient

fund was available on each date for deposit in the bank account. However,

he was not able to prove whether cash flow statement was filed before the

AO or not. He also pointed out that there was a cash withdrawal of Rs. 2 lacs

on 8-11-2005 from ICICI bank. Thus, availability of cash with the assessee

was amounting to Rs. 4 lacs and deposit in the bank account was only Rs. 2

lacs. Therefore, the addition made by the AO should be deleted.

4.    Ld. DR, on the other hand, stated that these facts and the explanation

were never given before the AO and, therefore, the same would require

verification at the end of the AO.




5.    The ld. counsel for the assessee has no objection for sending the mater

back to the file of AO. In view of the submissions of both the parties, we set

aside the orders of authorities below and restore the mater back to the file of

AO. We direct the AO to consider the assessee's explanation and thereafter
                                             3
                                                                            3548/Del/2011

re-adjudicate the issue with regard to the addition of Rs. 2,02,000/-, in

accordance with law

6.        In the result, assessee's appeal is deemed to be allowed for statistical

purposes.

Order pronounced in open court on 10/03/2015.


      Sd/-                                                   Sd/-
( GEORGE GEORGE K. )                                   ( G.D. AGRAWAL)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                                        VICE PRESIDENT
Dated: 10/03/2015.
*MP*
Copy of order to:

     1.   Assessee
     2.   AO
     3.   CIT
     4.   CIT(A)
     5.   DR, ITAT, New Delhi.

 
 
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2016 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Wholesale Silver Jewelry

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions