Case Law Details
Ramavtar Vs ITO (ITAT Delhi)
I have heard both the parties and perused the records especially the orders passed by the revenue authorities alongwith the documentary evidences filed by the assessee in support of his claim before the lower authorities. I am of the view that as per the order of the ld. CIT(A) the gross receipt in the year in dispute is 29,25,000/- and not Rs. 54,36,200/- as claimed by the assessee. Ld.CIT(A) has rightly corrected the mistake, but I am of the view that keeping in view of the evidences filed by the assessee and the statement of the Sarpanch of the village alongwith Certificate given by him i.e. Sarpanch and in view of the huge ownership of land by the assessee for which the assessee has produced all the documentary evidences as mentioned in the impugned order, I am of the considered view that Assessing Officer as well as Ld. CIT(A) made and confirmed the addition in dispute only on estimate basis and disallowed the same on the basis of the documentary evidences rejecting the claim of the assessee which is on the basis of the evidences of the revenue authorities. Hence, I am of the view that the addition in dispute has wrongly been made for this year by the revenue authorities without any basis and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law and is hereby deleted in the interest of justice, by accepting the appeal of the assessee.
FULL TEXT OF THE ITAT JUDGEMENT
PER H.S. SIDHU, JM:
This appeal filed by the Assessee is directed against the impugned order dated 28.02.2019 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), Rohtak in relation to assessment year 2014-15.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
