1 ITA No. 6746/Del/2015
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: `C' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI G. D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT
AND
MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER
I.T.A. No. 6746/DEL/2015 (A.Y 2005-06)
ITO Vs Amit Aggarwal
Ward 61(1) QD-43, Ground Floor,
New Delhi. Near TV Tower, Pitam Pura,
New Delhi.
PAN No. AAEPA6326P
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
C.O. No. 182/Del/2018
Amit Aggarwal Vs ITO
QD-43, Ground Floor, Ward 61(1)
Near TV Tower, Pitam Pura, New Delhi.
New Delhi.
PAN No. AAEPA6326P
(RESPONDENT)
(APPELLANT)
Appellant by Sh. Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Respondent by Sh. B.L. Gupta, Adv.
Sh. Amit Aggarwal, Self
Date of Hearing 03.06.2019
Date of Pronouncement 04.06.2019
ORDER
PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM
This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 27.10.2015
passed by the CIT(Appeals)-20, New Delhi for AY 2005-06. Grounds of appeal
are as under:
"On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred
in deleting the following additions:
1. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has
erred in allowing additional evidence under Rule 46A of the
I.T. Rules, 1962, without considering the fact that proper and
2 ITA No. 6746/Del/2015
adequate opportunities were provided to the assessee by the
Assessing Officer to produce details and evidence during the
reassessment proceedings.
2. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has
erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,00,000/- on account of
purchase of office premises.
3. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has
erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of
renovation of office.
4. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has
erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,80,000/- on account of
salary from M/s Galaxy Toyota Ltd.
5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has
erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 4,80,000/- on account of
income from private practices.
6. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has
erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 16,00,000/- on account of
investment in shares of M/s Praveen Tobacco Co. Pvt. Ltd.
7. That the appellant, craves, leave to add, amend or modify the
ground(s) of the appeal at any time."
2. The assessee is a Chartered Accountant and filed his regular return of
income for AY 2005-06 on 29.10.2005 declaring an income of Rs. 93,890/- and
the same was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Tax Evasion
Petition was received on 20.03.2012 by the Revenue. Accordingly, notice u/s
148 of the Income-tax Act dated 23.03.2012 was issued and served upon the
assessee. The assessee submitted before the Assessing Officer for providing of
reasons for reopening the case, but did not receive the same from the Revenue.
The Assessing Officer made an addition of Rs. 75,99,300/-.
3. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before
the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.
4. Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in allowing additional evidence
under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962 without considering the fact
that proper and adequate opportunities were provided to the assessee by the
Assessing Officer to produce details and evidence during the reassessment
proceedings. The Ld. DR further submitted that the deletion of various
3 ITA No. 6746/Del/2015
additions was also not correct on the part of the CIT(A). Thus, the Ld. DR
relied upon the assessment order.
5. The Ld. AR submitted that the Assessing Officer has not provided
adequate opportunity to the assessee during the assessment proceedings.
Therefore, the CIT(A) has rightly admitted the additional evidence filed under
Rule 46A. The Ld. AR submitted that the assessee has demonstrated the
evidence in consonance with the additions made by the Assessing Officer and
pleaded before the CIT(A) to delete those additions. The CIT(A) has also called
for remand report, wherein the Assessing Officer has justified the additions
made in the assessment order without taking into account the evidences
produced before the CIT(A). The Ld. AR submitted that the cross objection filed
by the assessee is not pressed at this juncture.
6. We have heard both the parties and perused all the material available on
record. From the perusal of the assessment order and order of the CIT(A), it
can be seen that the Assessing Officer received a Tax Evasion Petition with
certain details and after considering the same made addition without giving
proper opportunity to assessee to produce evidence during assessment
proceedings. During the assessment proceedings, despite asking for the
reasons for reopening u/s 148 the Assessing Officer has not provided the
reasons for reopening. Because of this, the assessee could not represent his
own case properly before the Assessing Officer and has not been given proper
opportunity by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) rightly proceeded on the basis
of merit of the case of the assessee after taking into consideration the remand
report. Thus, ground no. 1 of the Revenue appeal is dismissed. As regards
ground no. 2 the CIT(A) rightly observed that Revenue has failed to prove that
the property belongs to the assessee for which addition of Rs. 40 lakhs was
made by the Assessing Officer. There is no reason given by the Assessing
Officer as to why the same addition has been made. Therefore, ground no. 2 of
the Revenue appeal is dismissed. As regards ground no. 3 the CIT(A) rightly
4 ITA No. 6746/Del/2015
observed that the existence of the office and its ownership itself is not proved
by the Revenue, therefore, the question of expenses of renovation of such office
premises does not arise. Thus, ground no. 3 is dismissed. As regards ground
no. 4 on account of salary from M/s Galaxy Toyota Limited the Revenue could
not establish that the assessee was an employee of the said company and was
getting any salary/commission or any other payment. Therefore, CIT(A) rightly
deleted this addition. Ground no. 4 is dismissed. As regards ground no. 5,
addition on account of income from private practices the Assessing Officer has
not given any clear finding as to how the same addition has been done. The
CIT(A) rightly rejected the same. Ground no. 5 is dismissed. As regards
ground no. 6 on account of investment in shares of M/s Praveen Tobacco
Company Pvt. Ltd. the assessee filed details in respect of the shareholder who
happens to be the son of Shri Roshan Lal Aggarwal, whereas the assessee is a
son of Shri B.M. Aggarwal. Therefore, the very foundation of the addition made
by the Assessing Officer is without any verification and is rightly rejected by the
CIT(A). Ground no. 6 is dismissed. As regards to cross objection filed by the
assessee is not pressed, hence the same is dismissed.
7. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and the cross
objection filed by the Assessee is also dismissed.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on 4th June, 2019.
Sd/- Sd/-
(G. D. AGRAWAL) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE)
VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 04/06/2019
*Kavita Arora
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5. DR: ITAT
TRUE COPY
5 ITA No. 6746/Del/2015
ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
ITAT NEW DELHI
Date of dictation 03.06.2019
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the 03.06.2019
dictating Member
Date on which the typed draft is placed before the
Other Member
Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. 04.06.19
PS/PS
Date on which the fair order is placed before the 04.06.19
Dictating Member for pronouncement
Date on which the fair order comes back to the Sr. 04.06.19
PS/PS
Date on which the final order is uploaded on the 04.06.19
website of ITAT
Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk 04.06.19
Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk
|
