IN THE ITAT, CHANDIGARH BENCH

SANJAY GARG, J.M. & ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M.

DCIT v. Vasu Kalia

ITA Nos. 1118 & 1200/CHD/2017, ITA Nos. 245, 387 & 1506/CHD/2018

10 June, 2020

Assessee by: Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate

Revenue by: G.S. Phani Kishore, CIT DR

Sanjay Garg, J.M.

The captioned are the appeals preferred by the Revenue for assessment years 2013-14 & 2014-15 against the respective orders of Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana [hereinafter referred to as 'CIT(A)']. Since the facts and issue involved in all these appeals are interconnected, hence, these appeals were heard together and are being disposed off with this common order.

ITA No. 1118/CHD/2017 (Assessment Year 2013-14)

2. First, we take up ITA No. 1118/Chd/2017, wherein, following grounds have been raised by the Revenue :--

1. The learned Commissioner (Appeals), Ludhiana has erred in law to delete the addition of Rs. 1,09,35,518 on account of Commission Income despite considering the fact that assessing officer has proved that assessee is merely an entry provider and assessee's books are not reliable, hence assessing officer has rejected assessee's books of account.