Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. ITA No. 163/Asr./2003 (assessment year 1998-99) is an appeal by the assessee - Tejinder Singh (HUF). It arises out of the assessment made on it under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act by order dated 27.3.2001. In this assessment order, an addition of Rs. 16,80,475/- was made under Section 168 of the Act. The amount represented sale proceeds of jewellery which had earlier been disclosed under the Voluntary Disclosure Income Scheme, 1997. The jewellery was shown to have been sold to M/s. Bishan Chand Mukesh Kumar, a firm of jewellers located in Delhi. The Assessing Officer disbelieved the sale and held that the assessee has adopted a device to introduce his own unaccounted income into the regular books. The addition was confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) and the assessee has come in further appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon'ble President took into account the recommendation of the Amritsar Bench of the Tribunal dated 18.12.2006 and also the fact that the matter was of public importa...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These appeals by the Revenue for asst. yrs. 1992-93 and 1993-94 arise out of separate orders of the learned CIT(A)-XTV, New Delhi.These appeals were heard together and for the sake of convenience are disposed of by this consolidated order. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in deleting the interest charged under Section 220(2) of the IT Act, 1961 amounting to Rs. 1,30,10,582; 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow proportionate credit of TDS of Rs. 68,98,588 in either asst. yr. 1992-93 or 1993-94, when the entire interest income corresponding to TDS of Rs. 68,98,588 has not been reflected. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the CIT(A) has erred in directing the AO to allow proportionate credit of TDS of Rs. 68,98,588 in either asst. yr. 1992-93 or in asst. yr. 1993-94.4. First, we take up the appeal for asst. yr. 1992-93. In order...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Delhi)289
1. All these appeals are filed by the Revenue and these are directed against the consolidated order of CIT(A) dt. 18th May, 2006 for asst.yrs. 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The only issue raised by the Revenue in these appeals is regarding levy of interest under Section 234D of IT Act, 1961. Grounds raised for all the years are identical except difference in figures. For the sake of convenience grounds of appeal for asst. yr. 1998-99 is reproduced below: On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the interest of Rs. 1,04,773 charged under Section 234D of the Act.2. As there was divergence of opinions so as to chargeability of interest under Section 234D, the matter was referred to Hon'ble President for constitution of Special Bench on this issue. Hon'ble President vide his order dt. 11th Oct., 2007 has constituted this Special Bench to answer the following question and also to dispose of the present appeals. Whether, in the...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These cross appeals of the assessee and the revenue arise out of the order of the CIT (A), Panchkula, passed on 30.09.2005 in Appeal No.Res/64/GGN/04-05, pertaining to assessment year 1996-97. On perusal of the order of the learned CIT (A), it is found that the assessee had filed return of income declaring total income of Rs. 3,43,460/- on 30.11.1996. The return was processed under section 143(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"] on 30.05.1997, determining the total income at Rs. 8,20,814/-. Thereafter, assessment was framed under Section 144 of the Act on 18.03.1999 determining the total income at Rs. 2,14,89,110/-. The appeal against this order was decided by the CIT (A) on 17.09.1999. However, the Tribunal, vide order No.4551/Del/1999 dated 31.03.2003 restored the appeal to the file of the CIT (A). Consequently, the CIT (A) passed an order on 30.09.2005 and the appeals before us emanate from this order.2. Ground No. 6 of the appeal of the assessee is preliminar...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the CIT (A) dated 22^nd March, 2007 for assessment year 1997-98. Grounds of appeal read as under: The Learned CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in holding that the Assessing Officer was justified in charging interest Under Section 220(2) brushing aside Appellant's submissions made before me to the effect that the Appellant is not liable to charge of interest Under Section 220(2) of the Income-tax Act. 1. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding A.O.'s action in treating the appellant to be in default and liable to charge of interest Under Section 220(2) ignoring he fact that the demand raised by the A.O. pursuant to order Under Section 143(3) dated 29.3.2000 was vacated by the Ld. CIT (A) vide his appellate order dated 20.5.2000 and there remained no outstanding demand prior to passing of consequential order Under Section 254 in a unilateral manner, to give effect to Tribunal's order in the appe...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)117TTJ(Delhi)141
1. All the three appeals are Revenue's appeals directed against a consolidated order of the learned CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi, dt. 25th June, 2007 for the asst. yrs. 1999-2000, 2000-01 and 2001-02.2. The grounds raised by the Revenue are identical in these three appeals, and hence we reproduce the grounds from 1TA No. 4058/De1/2007. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in deleting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), when the additions made in the assessment order have been confirmed in the quantum appeal by the Hon'ble Tribunal. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering the facts of the case of Ram Commercial Enterprises Ltd. and other similar cases have been referred to a Larger Bench by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court itself in the case of CIT v. Sanjeev Kumar Gupta (ITA No. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) has erred in not considering decision o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. These cross appeal by the assessee and Revenue arise out of order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)-XXX, New Delhi. These appeals were heard together and for the sake of convenience are disposed of by this consolidated order.2. The first issue for consideration in assessee's appeal relates to assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the I.T. Act. The facts of the case stated in brief are the notice under Section 148 of the Act was issued for assessment year 1098-99 on 30^th March. 2005 by Income-tax Officer, Ward : 2(2). Ghaziabad. In response to the notice it was submitted by the assessee that he had filed return with the Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 21(2) Delhi and was being regularly assessed by him. However, it was stated that return filed originally may be treated a return filed in response to notice under Section 147 of the Act. Thereafter the file was transferred by Income-tax Officer.Ward : 2 (2), Ghaziabad, to the Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax. Circle 40 (1). New De...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Reported in : (2008)113ITD655(Delhi)
1. These appeals of the assessee were decided by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dt. 9th March, 2007 reported as Smt. Krishna Verma v. Asstt. CIT (2007) 109 TTJ (Del) (SB) 193Ed. Thereafter, the assessee filed miscellaneous applications bearing Nos. 327 and 264/Del/2007. The said miscellaneous applications were disposed of by the Tribunal vide consolidated order dt. 24th Aug., 2007.2. In the miscellaneous applications filed, the grievance of the assessee was that the Tribunal had decided only one ground of appeal which related to the defect in the notice issued under Section 158BC by giving less than 15 days notice to the assessee to file block return and this Tribunal did not adjudicate upon the other grounds of appeal raised in the above appeals filed by the assessee. Since the Special Bench constituted to decide whole of the appeal and certain other legal grounds involving jurisdictional aspect, which were raised but have not been adjudicated upon, there was a mistake in the o...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi dated 20.3.2006.The assessee in the present case is a company which filed its return of income for the year under consideration on 28.11.1997 declaring its total income at nil under the normal provisions and at Rs. 7,56,291/- Under Section 115JA. Subsequently, on 15.7.2002, there was a search and seizure operation conducted by the department in the case of Shri N.C.Bansal and Others. On the basis of material found and seized during the course of the said operation, it was found that M/s Jain Brothers & Co.and other entities belonging to Shri N.C. Bansal were entry operators.It was revealed that the modus operandi followed by the said entry operators was to deposit the cash into bank accounts and issue cheques to the different parties from the said bank account after charging certain percentage of commission.2. It was also noticed that the assessee company was one of such parties who had re...
Tag this Judgment!Court : Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
1. All these appeals by assessee ares directed against the order of learned CIT(A), Muzaffarnagar dated 5.1.2006 in an appeal against order levying penalty Under Section 271D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act). In all these appeals, the assessee challenges levy of penalty Under Section 271D of the Act. Since all these assesses are related to each other and facts in all the cases are identical, these appeals were heard together and are disposed of by a common order.2. The three assesses became partners of a partnership firm M/s Jai Laxmi Cane Crusher at Village Kukavi, Distt. Saharanpur, UP. Each of these partners introduced capital of Rs. 1,50,000/- in the books of firm. The capital introduced was received by them from their grandfather Shri Rodhu Singh through cheque drawn on District Cooperative Bank.3. The AO issued notice Under Section 148 requiring the assessee to file return of income. The assessee filed the return of income declaring income in the form of salary and interest...
Tag this Judgment!