HARBANS LAL CHADHA,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 35(4), NEW DELHI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 8262/DEL/2019Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 March 2023AY 2016-174 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that making an addition for AY 2016-17 on identical cash deposits made during the demonetization period (which falls within AY 2017-18) amounts to a double addition. Therefore, the addition was unsustainable.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal concerns an addition made by the Assessing Officer for AY 2016-17 related to cash deposits during the demonetization period. The assessee argued that this was a double addition as an identical issue for the demonetization period was assessed for AY 2017-18.

What were the issues?

Whether an addition for cash deposits made during the demonetization period can be made for an assessment year preceding the period of demonetization, leading to a double addition.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 68,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH: SMC: NEW DELHI

Before: SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG

Hearing: 16.03.2023Pronounced: 17.03.2023

Date of Hearing : 16.03.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 17.03.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M.

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 09.08.2019 of the Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2016-17.

2.

The sole contention of learned counsel of the assessee is that the Assessing Officer has made addition without application of mind and the Ld. CIT(A) has also erred in confirming the addition

Harbans Lal Chadha Page 2 of 4 by changing the section 68 of Income Tax Act 1961 to section 69A of the Act. The learned counsel drawing my attention towards copy of the assessment order for subsequent assessment year 2017-18 placed at pages 17 and 18 of assessee paper book submitted that the Assessing Officer has made identical addition in the hands of assessee pertaining to cash deposit to bank account during demonetization period for A.Y. 2017-18 and against which the appeal of the assessee is pending for adjudication before the Ld. CIT(A). The learned counsel vehemently pointed out that that demonetization period falls within the ambit of assessment year 2017-18 whereas the Assessing Officer has also made double addition on identical issue for preceding assessment year 2016-17 which is not valid and sustainable.

3.

The learned Senior DR strongly supported the orders of authorities below.

4.

On careful consideration of above submissions first of all I note that the issue involve in this appeal is pertaining to the cash deposits by the assessee during demonetization period which falls within the ambit of A.Y. 2017-18. However the Assessing Officer has Harbans Lal Chadha Page 3 of 4 made addition of same allegation of cash deposits during demonetization period for present A.Y. 2016-17 which would certainly amount to double addition in the irrelevant assessment year. This factual position has not been controverted by the learned Senior DR that the identical addition has been made by the AO in the A.Y. 2017-18 and appeal against the said order is pending for adjudication before Ld. CIT(A).

5.

Therefore addition made by the AO for A.Y. 2016-17 on identical deposit cannot be held as sustainable and thus I direct the AO to delete the same. Accordingly grounds of assessee are allowed.

6.

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 17.03.2023.

More judgments on Section 68

All 29,931 judgments and leading authorities on Section 68 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →