Ashok Goel Vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-28

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Ashok Goel, filed his original Income Tax Return on 10.01.2011 declaring income of Rs.12,48,327/-. He is the Director of the group companies of SRM group which was searched under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 15.10.2013. Consequently, assessment proceedings were initiated under section 153A of the Act. During the proceedings, the assessee filed a Settlement Application under section 245C(1) of the Act, which was rejected by the Income Tax Settlement Commission on 29.01.2018. The Assessing Officer then inferred that the assessee had made a cash advance of Rs.5,00,000/- on annual interest of 3.00%, and taxed the unexplained advance along with the consequential interest thereon aggregating to Rs.5,15,000/-. Additionally, the AO taxed additional income of Rs.4,00,000/- as unaccounted remuneration received from Shri Raj Mahal Jewellers Pvt. Ltd. The assessment was completed at an income of Rs.21,63,330/- as against the returned income of Rs.12,48,327/-. Aggrieved, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A), who dismissed the appeal due to non-prosecution.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the order passed by the CIT(A) is contrary to the facts and bad in law.
• 2. Whether the assessment order dated 31.07.2019 is void ab initio being time-barred.
• 3. Whether the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order without considering the submissions of the appellant.
• 4. Whether the addition of Rs.5,15,000/- based on seized document A-1, R-4 Page 25 is justified.
• 5. Whether the addition can be made in the hands of assessee under section 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961.
• 6. Whether the addition on remuneration received from Shree Raj Mahal Jewelers is sustainable.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• M/s. Shree Raj Mahal Gems Private Limited Vs. DCIT Central Circle – 6

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Raj Kumar Kothari vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2022-23Allowed

• Viraj Solar Maharashtra Private Limited Vs ITO, 8(3)(1), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2021-22Allowed

• Kulsum Aaqib Memon vs The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 4(2), Mumbai

  Mumbai Bench 'E', Mumbai benchAY 2021-22Allowed

• Raj Shyama Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT

  Partly Allowed

• Mrs. Marguerite Lasusa Chawla Vs ACIT, International Taxation

  Delhi Bench ‘D’, New Delhi benchAY 2018-19Allowed