Tally for CAs in Industry Silver Edition (Single User) Tally Renewal (Auditor Edition) Need Tally for Clients? (Tie-up with us!!!)
Open DEMAT Account with in 24 Hrs and start investing now!
From the Courts »
Open DEMAT Account in 24 hrs
 Shri Ramit Vohra, Prop. M/s. Impact Enterprises, 9210/5, Multani Dhanda, Pahar Ganj, New Delhi Vs. ACIT, Circle : 63 (1) New Delhi.
 Smt. Bhavana Jain, Prop. M/s Akash Metal Industries, outside Barsi Gate, Hansi, Haryana Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hisar, Haryana
 M/s Pearey Lal & Sons (E.P.) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. Vs. ACIT, Rohtak.
 Rajvanti Devi R/o Liwan Sonipat w/o Phool Kumar 96, R Model Town, Sonipat. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Sonipat.
 M/s. Anthena Multitrade Pvt. Ltd. (Formerly known as Good Life Impex Pvt. Ltd.) Vs. Income Tax Officer(E), Ward 6(2), (Old Jurisdiction)
 Ram Naresh Sikarwar, Ballabgarh. Vs. ITO, Ward-II(2), Faridabad.
 District Manager, HAFED, Site No.01, Opp.Main Market, Sector-5, Kurukshetra, Haryana Vs. JCIT, TDS Range, Karnal, Haryana
 Ravi Kumar Verma C/o. Pushkar Jain, Advocate, 115-C, Jain Nagar, Merut City-2 Uttar Pradesh Vs. ACIT Circle-2 Mewat
 Poonam Jain, A-2/15, F.F., Phase-3 Ashok Vihar, New Delhi Vs. Ito, Ward 34(4), Room No. 713, E-2 Block, Civic Centre, New Delhi
 AKT IMPEX PVT. LTD., D-28, SOUTH EXTENSION, PART-I, NEW DELHI Vs. ITO, WARD 2(4), NEW DELHI
 Nitin Gupta Shree Ji Jewellers, Shop No. 1168/3 and 4, Kucha Mahajani, Chandni Chowk Vs. ITO Ward-47(4) New Delhi
 MG Metalloy Pvt. Ltd, B-16, Sector-2, Noida Vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida
 Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 36(1), New Delhi. Vs. Shri Bharat Bhushan Sawhney, C-56, New Sabzi Mandi, Azadpur, Delhi.
 MR. SUBHASH CHANDER, C/O SURAJ BHAN NAIN, ADVOCATE, H.NO. 203, SECTOR-27, GURUGRAM, HARYANA Vs. ITO, WARD-4, HISAR
 Ranjan Kumar Ghai RRA Tax India D-28, South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi VS. DCIT Central Circle-I Gurgaon

Ravi Kumar Verma C/o. Pushkar Jain, Advocate, 115-C, Jain Nagar, Merut City-2 Uttar Pradesh Vs. ACIT Circle-2 Mewat
September, 02nd 2021

1 ITA No. 2119/Del/2016

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI

BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
AND

MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

I.T.A. No. 2119/DEL/2016 (A.Y 2012-13)
(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING)

Ravi Kumar Verma Vs ACIT

C/o. Pushkar Jain, Advocate, Circle-2

115-C, Jain Nagar, Merut City-2 Mewat

Uttar Pradesh

AAIPV4953F (RESPONDENT)

(APPELLANT)

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

ORDER


PER SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 04/02/2016
passed by CIT(A)-Meerut for assessment year 2012-13.

2. The grounds of appeal are as under:-

1. “That the learned assessing officer erred in law fact by disallowance Rs.
575610/- without any basis. Hence disallowance of Rs. 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 assessee main condition i.e.
identity, creditworthiness. genuineness of addition of Rs. 7310640/- u/s 68
uncalled for arbitrary very be deleted.
2 ITA No. 2119/Del/2016

3. That learned assessing officer -erred in law & fact by ad 7310640/- to
the income of the assessee while assessee has explanation, 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 explanation 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 partnership firm being a
sleeping partner and other income from different firms. 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 Income Tax Act, 1961,
amounting to Rs.73,10,640/-.

4. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee filed appeal before
the CIT(A). The CIT(A) partly allowed the appeal of the assessee.

5. At the time of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that 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 income of the assessee u/s
68 of the Act, while the assessee’s 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 assessee’s and the evidences were rejected summarily by the Assessing
Officer. Hence addition of Rs.73,10,640/- is uncalled for, arbitrary, excessive
3 ITA No. 2119/Del/2016

and the same ought to be deleted. The Ld. AR further submitted that the
Assessing Officer erred in law & fact by making addition 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 explanation which was rejected
summarily by the Assessing Officer. Hence addition of Rs. 310640/- is uncalled
for, arbitrary as well as excessive, and the same ought 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 material available on
record. It is pertinent to note that the assessee could not produce the parties
before the Assessing Officer. In fact the confirmations 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 will be appropriate to remand
back this entire issue from Ground No. 2 to 4 to the 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 said amount and explain the
creditworthiness, genuineness of the transactions before the Assessing Officer.
Needless to say, the assessee be given opportunity of hearing by following
principles of natural justice. Therefore, the appeal 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 Day of August, 2021.

Sd/- Sd/-

(R. K. PANDA) (SUCHITRA KAMBLE)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER

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

Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2021 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Ritz Consulting