Gangeshwari Metals Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi Vs ITO, Ward-11(3), New Delhi

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

BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
and
SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER

(THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE)

ITA No.9343/Del./2019
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11)

M/s. Gangeshwari Metals Pvt. Ltd., Shop No.4, 169, Shivkhand, New Delhi.Vishwakarma Nagar, Jhilmil,Delhi – 110 032.
(PAN : AABCG4856A)

vs.

ITO, Ward 11 (3),New Delhi.
(RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : Shri Sandeep Sapra, CA
REVENUE BY : Ms. Parul Singh, Senior DR

Date of Hearing : 12.10.2020
Date of Order : 22.10.2020

O R D E R

PER KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER :

Appellant, M/s. Gangeshwari Metals Pvt. Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as ‘the assessee’) by filing the present appeal sought to set aside the impugned order dated 07.10.2019 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, New Delhi qua the assessment year 2010-11 on the grounds inter alia that :-

“1. That the impugned assessment order dated 29/12/2017 passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of IT Act deserves to be quashed/annulled as initiation of proceedings u/s 147/148 is bad in law inter alia because:

a) AO has not applied his mind so as to come to an independent satisfaction that he had reason to believe that income has escaped assessment as Reasons have been recorded on borrowed satisfaction viz. letter dated 27.03.2017 alongwith report of the Investigation Wing, Unit 3(1), Kolkata without making an independent enquiries.

b) The figures recorded in the reasons viz. buying, selling and profit are factually incorrect which also shows non application of mind on the part of the AO.

c) There was no proper valid and legal service of notice under section 148 of the IT Act on the Appellant.

d) Requisite sanction as required from the competent authority under section 151 of IT Act has been granted in a mechanical manner.

e) The reasons recorded indicate that the AO has acted on mere surmises and suspicion for making fishing and roving enquires. The requirement of law is "reason to believe" and not "reason to suspect".

f) There is no nexus between the reasons recorded and escapement of income.

g) There is no failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.

2. That the Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.1,31,08,895/- u/s 68 read with section 115BBE of I.T. Act as against profit of Rs.1,49,19,900 declared on account of commodity trading.”

To know more in details find the attachment file