Eminent Computers Pvt Ltd, New Delhi Vs ITO WARD - 8(2), New Delhi

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH ‘B’ : NEW DELHI)

BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
and
SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

ITA No.6372/Del./2019
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11)

M/s. Eminent Computers Pvt. Ltd., 
S-363, Greater Kailash 1, New Delhi.
New Delhi – 110 048.
(PAN : AAACE2256K)
(APPELLANT) 

vs.

ITO Ward 8 (2),
(RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Shaantanu Jain, Advocate
REVENUE BY : Shri Jagdish Singh, Senior DR

Date of Hearing : 19.10.2020
Date of Order : 24.11.2020

O R D E R

PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

Appellant, M/s. Eminent Computers Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 24.05.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-34, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the grounds inter alia that :-

“1. Because the action for initiation, continuation and conclusion of reassessment proceedings is being challenged on facts and law.

2. Because the action for the assumption of jurisdiction of reassessment proceedings and the misapplication of the jurisdiction sanction being ‘a fit case for issue of notice' is being challenged on facts and law.

3. Because the action for initiation of re-assessment proceedings is unreasonable since while recording reasons, there is non-application of mind much less independent application of mind and merely relying upon investigation report by AO, further reasons recorded are vague, lacking tangible material/ reasonable cause and justification.

4. Because the action is being challenged since the addition of Rs 45,00,000/ - has been made without having provided the cross examination of the person on whose statement or information the proceedings under section 147 were initiated which is in violation of the settled principle of law.

5. Because the action is being challenged since the addition of Rs 45,00,000/ - has been made without making proper investigation from the other party whereby assessee has discharged the onus by providing relevant documents

6. Because the action for addition u/s 68 amounting Rs.45,00,000/- is being challenged on facts and law while all parameters for the provision of law required by assessee fulfilled as revealed in findings from acquiescence by silence.

7. Because the action for enhancement of addition on account of commission Rs. 45,000/ - is being challenged on facts and law as no specific show cause notice issued by CIT(A) on assessee.

8. Because the action is being challenged on facts and law for making addition on account of commission paid amounting Rs.45,000/ - at the rate of 1 % of Rs.45,00,000/-.”

To know more in details find the attachment file