Sunil Gupta Vs ACIT (ITAT Delhi)
In this search-assessment appeal, Assessee contended that assessment u/s 153A r.w.s 143(3) was invalid since no notice u/s 143(2) was issued after filing return in response to notice u/s 153A. Tribunal, applying the Delhi High Court ruling in Ashok Chaddha, held that in search cases a separate notice u/s 143(2) is not mandatory once notice u/s 153A has already been issued, & questionnaires issued during proceedings adequately satisfy the requirement of opportunity. This ground was therefore dismissed.
On the addition relating to differential sales, Assessee declared sales of ₹8.60 lakh in the return, while additional sales of ₹43.60 lakh appeared in the statement of affairs, resulting in a difference of ₹35 lakh. AO applied a net profit rate of 9.40% & CIT(A) confirmed the same. Tribunal noted that NP rate varies year to year-9.40% in this year & 3.25% in the succeeding year-& directed application of an average NP rate of 6.46%, partly allowing the ground.
Regarding the addition of ₹22.36 lakh u/s 68 towards unsecured loans, Tribunal deleted the addition of ₹86,000 received from Shiv Kumar Gupta as the creditor was identifiable, assessed to tax, & funds moved through banking channels. For the remaining ₹19.50 lakh received from Nirmal Kumar, Tribunal found that complete details were filed but never verified, & therefore restored this issue to AO for fresh examination of creditworthiness & genuineness. Appeal was thus partly allowed for statistical purposes.
