9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (2) TMI 1137X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... irst appellate proceedings failing which the Ld. CIT(A) shall be at liberty to proceed ex-parte qua the assessees in accordance with law. Assesee all the appeals stand allowed for statistical purposes. - ITA No.3806 to 3817/Del/2016, ITA No.3819 to 3828/Del/2016 - - - Dated:- 17-2-2021 - Shri R.K. Panda, Accountant Member And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Sh. Rajeshwar Prasad Painuly, CA For the Respondent : Mrs. Aashma Paul, CIT-DR ORDER PER BENCH: These 22 appeals raise identical grounds. They were taken up together for hearing and are being disposed of through this common order for the sake of convenience. 2.0 The brief facts of the cases are that there was a search in Aerens Group of cases along with other related groups at the various residential and business premises. The search was conducted on 17.08.2011. Subsequent to the search, statutory notices u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called the Act ) were issued to the above captioned assessees and the assessments were completed as under: ITA Nos. Assessee s Name Asst. Year ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Surender Gupta 2010-11 ₹ 43,66,401/- 3827/Del/2016 Surender Gupta 2011-12 ₹ 1,57,98,589/- 3828/Del/2016 Surender Gupta 2012-13 ₹ 76,34,996/- 3.0 Aggrieved by these assessments, the captioned assessees approached the Ld. First Appellate Authority challenging the additions/disallowances. However, all the appeals were dismissed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) {CIT(A)}. Now, the assessees have approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal all the appeals by the Ld. CIT(A). The following grounds have been taken by the assessees: Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3807/Del/2016 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... before or at the time of hearing. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3808/Del/2016 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of ₹ 1,12,00,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that works was done by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3810/Del/2016 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of ₹ 31,64,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of ₹ 1,12,00,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that works was done by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of ₹ 44,56,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no ev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... over, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3814/Del/2016 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of ₹ 31,64,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer ab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of ₹ 1,12,00,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that works was done by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of ₹ 44,56,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3819/Del/2016 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving adequate opportunity to the appellant. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of ₹ 12,12,500/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that there was no evidence with the assessing officer about the expenditure was incurred by the appellant for the purchase of share capital. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... espite the fact that services were provided by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234D of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3822/Del/2016 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of ₹ 44,120/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that services were provided by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed mere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in rejecting the ground of the appellant on non-applicability of provisions of Section 234B of the Income Tax Act despite the fact that said provisions are not applicable. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 4. The appellant craves the leave to add, substitute, modify, delete or amend all or any ground of appeal either before or at the time of hearing. Grounds of appeal in ITA No.3827/Del/2016 1. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer without giving the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of ₹ 1,12,00,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that works was done by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the adequate opportunity to the appellant. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 2. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of ₹ 48,00,000/- arbitrarily and on ad hoc basis despite the fact that works was done by the Company in which appellant is a director. There was no evidence with the assessing officer about the transaction of the company, in which appellant is a director, is bogus. Further, Company and its directors are two different entities. Moreover, no incriminating documents were found during the course of search. The addition was made purely on presumptive basis. Thus, order of the learned CIT (A), passed merely on surmises and conjecture should be reversed. 3. The learned CIT (A) erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal against the order of assessing officer and confirming the addition of ₹ 27,50,000/- arbitrarily and on presumption basis despite the fact that the inadmissible paper found during the search neither belongs to the appellant nor its business. Moreover no such expen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
