ITA No. 1196/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2010-11
ITA No. 1197/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2011-12
ITA No. 1198/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2012-13
ITA No. 1199/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2013-14
ITA No. 1200/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2014-15
ITA No. 1201/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2015-16
ITA No. 1202/Del/2020 : Asstt. Year: 2016-17
5190, Lahori Gate,
Delhi-110006
Vs.
Central Circle-07,
New Delhi-110055
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAACK4644H
Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv.,
Sh. Aditya Vohra, Adv. &
Sh. Arpit Goyal, CA
Ms. Meenakshi J. Goswami, CIT DR
Date of Hearing: 09.02.2022
Date of Pronouncement: 09.05.2022
Per Bench:
The assessee as well as the Revenue have filed these cross appeals against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A)-24, New Delhi, dated 11.03.2020.
KRBL Limited, Delhi (‘the appellant’), filed an appeal against the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-07, New Delhi (‘the respondent’), concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The case was initially filed on June 18, 2020, and a final tribunal order was pronounced on May 9, 2022.
The main grounds of appeal raised by the appellant include:
On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming additions/disallowances aggregating to INR 14,07,06,177/- made by the Learned Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-07, New Delhi (‘Ld. AO’) in the impugned order dated 31.12.2018 passed under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the Act (‘Impugned Assessment Order’) for the subject year. The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the above-referred additions/disallowances were made by Ld. AO merely on conjecture and surmises without due application of mind and/or affording reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Appellant, in complete violation of the principles of natural justice.
On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the additions made by the Ld. AO in the Impugned Assessment Order completed under section 153A of the Act for the subject year, without appreciating that no incriminating material/information was unearthed during the course of search operations at Appellant’s premises, and therefore the additions made in absence of any incriminating material/information are liable to be deleted.
On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in affirming the impugned addition of INR 14,07,06,177/- made by the Ld. AO by alleging that the Appellant has failed to discharge its onus to prove the genuineness of the transactions without appreciating evidences/records/information/submissions furnished before the Ld. AO & Ld. CIT(A) that clearly prove that these transactions were genuine and undertaken through normal banking channel and trading results of the Appellant for subject year have been duly accepted by the Income-tax Department. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the above addition without appreciating that the Impugned Assessment Order was passed without confronting the Appellant in respect of alleged evidences/information collected by the Ld. AO and without allowing cross examination of the witnesses whose statements/letters were used against the Appellant, even after specific and repeated request of the Appellant.
On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the Impugned Assessment Order passed by the Ld.AO for subject year is within the extended time limit prescribed under the provisions of the Act, and in not appreciating that the Impugned Assessment Order was passed on 31.12.2018 as against limitation period of on or before 31.12.2017, and consequently the same is bad-in-law, void and liable to be annulled.
That on the facts and circumstance of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the ground raised by the Appellant with respect to levy of interest under section 234A of the Act, and has failed to appreciate that there was no delay in filing the return of income on part of the Appellant for the subject year. Thus, the interest levied under section 234A of the Act is unlawful/incorrect and liable to be deleted.
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) of Delhi Bench ‘C’ reviewed the case and the grounds of appeal raised by KRBL Ltd. against the DCIT Central Circle-07, New Delhi. After hearing the arguments from both sides and reviewing the submissions, the Tribunal concluded that the additions and disallowances made by the CIT(A) and AO were based on conjecture and lacked incriminating evidence. As a result, the Tribunal decided to delete the additions made by the AO for the assessment year 2013-14 and ruled in favor of KRBL Ltd. The Tribunal also annulled the interest levied under section 234A of the Act, finding it unlawful due to the timely filing of the return of income by the Appellant.
KRBL Limited vs. DCIT Central Circle-07, New Delhi – ITA 1199/DEL/2020
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform