Loading judgment…
Facts
During a search under Section 132, un-encashed cheques were found related to a sale deed. The assessing authorities concluded that the assessee made unaccounted payments of Rs. 49,50,000/- for this sale. In a separate issue for AY 2020-21, Rs. 18,00,000/- was declared as additional income from tuition and related activities.
Held
The Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for AY 2015-16, deleting the addition of Rs. 15,00,000/- as it was found to be paid. However, the remaining addition of Rs. 34,50,000/- was upheld. The appeal for AY 2020-21 was dismissed as the assessee failed to discharge the onus of proof regarding the additional income.
Key Issues
Whether the addition on account of alleged unaccounted payments for sale consideration is justified? Whether the additional income declared from tuition and related activities is substantiated and taxable under Section 69 r.w.s 115BBE?
Sections Cited
153A, 143(3), 69, 115BBE, 132
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Naveen Chandra
Asstt. Year: 2015-16 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Arti Shukla, Vs DCIT, 1-A/1, Vimal Apartment, Agra Central Circle-31, H.O., Agra, Uttar Pradesh-282001 New Delhi-110055 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. DESPS4180E Assessee by : Sh. Anil Sethi, CA & Sh. Harshi Srivastav, Adv. Revenue by : Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT-DR Date of Hearing: 25.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 25.08.2025 ORDER Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member: These assessee’s twin appeals & 1325/Del/2023, for Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2020-21, arise against the CIT(A)-30, New Delhi’s in case No. 10655/2014-15 and 10620/2019-20 dated 15.09.2022 and 30.09.2022, in proceedings u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”), respectively.
Heard both the parties at length. Case files perused.
& 1325/Del/2023 Arti Shukla hearing seeks to reverse both the learned lower authorities’ action making section 69 undisclosed investment addition of Rs.49,50,000/- made in the course of assessment and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
We advert to the basic relevant facts. There is no dispute between the parties that the assessee herein was covered under the department’s section 132 search action dated 01.11.2019 carried out in M/s DNC Group of cases. It was during the said search action that the departmental authorities came across three un-encashed cheques involving Rs.15,00,000/- each in former twin and Rs.19,50,000/- in the last instance, respectively, which forms part of sale consideration of Rs.1,12,00,000/- registered much earlier. The said sale deed had admittedly involved the actual payment of Rs.62,00,000/- and balance was to be paid vide the three of the above cheques which formed incriminating material for the assessment authorities to conclude that the assessee had made unaccounted payments of the very same consideration totaling to Rs.49,50,000/- to her vendor(s). All this resulted in the impugned addition made in the assessee’s case which stands upheld in the lower appellate discussion.
& 1325/Del/2023 Arti Shukla 5. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s and the Revenue’s vehement contentions reiterating their respective stands. A perusal of the case record indicates first of all that the assessee had infact paid an amount of Rs.15,00,000/- as per her submissions in the lower appellate proceedings which has neither been specifically dealt with nor rejected in the lower appellate discussion. Learned counsel invites our attention to the assessee’s submissions made to this effect in para 9.3 page 42 of the CIT(A)’s order under challenge. This clinching fact has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. We thus find force in the assessee’s instant first and foremost argument and delete the impugned addition to the extent of above payment of Rs.15,00,000/- in very terms.
The facts also remains that the assessee has not discharged her statutory presumption of having paid the balance consideration of Rs.34,50,000/- to her vendor(s) as per the seized material. We thus find no reason to interfere with the learned lower authorities’ action to this effect. The impugned addition to the foregoing extent stand upheld therefore.
6.1 No other ground or argument has been pressed before us.
Next comes the assessee’s latter appeal for assessment year 2020-21. Suffice to say, the sole substantive issue herein is that of assessment of Rs.18,00,000/- declared as additional income which has been assessed by both the learned lower authorities u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE of the Act.
Learned counsel submits in this factual backdrop that the assessee had derived the foregoing income by carrying out tuitions and related activities. We note that neither she has discharged her onus of proving the corresponding qualifications and experience nor the details of her so called students and their deposition(s) before the learned lower authorities are forthcoming from the case records. We thus find no reason to interfere with both the learned lower authorities respective findings assessing the assessee’s foregoing additional income u/s 69 r.w.s. 115BBE off the Act Rejected accordingly.
8.1 No other grounds or argument has been pressed before us.