HARI SHANKER SHARMA,FARIDABAD vs. ITO WARD-1(3), FARIDABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 3140/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 July 2025AY 2011-123 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that while the lower authorities had treated the entire purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs. 24.50 lakhs as unexplained investment, a lumpsum addition of Rs. 2.00 lakhs would be just and proper in the peculiar facts and circumstances. The Tribunal reasoned that the assessee had received payment vouchers of Rs. 44,11,745/- from the Central Government under the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and made withdrawals, though not satisfactorily explained. The Tribunal explicitly stated that this decision shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee was granted relief of Rs. 22.5 lakhs. Necessary computation was to follow as per law. No issue was expressly left undecided.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Sh. Hari Shanker Sharma, is in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.03.2025. This order pertains to assessment year 2011-12 and arises from proceedings under section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessment order was dated 22.12.2018. The assessee did not appear before the ITAT, and the appeal was proceeded with ex-parte. The dispute involves the assessee's purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs. 24.50 lakhs, which the lower authorities considered unexplained investment. The assessee had received payment vouchers of Rs. 44,11,745/- from the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and made withdrawals, which were not satisfactorily explained.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs. 24.50 lakhs by the assessee represents unexplained investment, turning on the provisions of Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Assessee's contentions: Not recorded as the assessee did not appear. Revenue's contentions: The learned departmental representative argued that both the lower authorities rightly held the assessee's purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs. 24.50 lakhs as representing his unexplained investment. The revenue pointed out that the assessee received payment vouchers of Rs. 44,11,745/- from the Central Government under the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority and made withdrawals, which were not satisfactorily explained before the lower authorities.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 69

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 22.07.2025Pronounced: 22.07.2025

Date of hearing 22.07.2025 Date of pronouncement 22.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s DIN and order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074426899(1), dated 12.03.2025 involving proceedings under section 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. It is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.

2.

Learned departmental representative vehemently argues that both the lower authorities have rightly held the assessee’s purchase of immovable property amounting to Rs.24.50 lakhs as representing his unexplained investment, in assessment order dated 22.12.2018 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion. He could hardly dispute the clinching fact that even the learned CIT(A)’s lower appellate discission at page 15 onwards makes it clear that the assessee had received payment vouchers of Rs.44,11,745/- from Central Government under the Yamuna Expressway Industrial Development Authority followed by his withdrawals as well; although not satisfactorily explained before the learned lower authorities. It is thus deemed appropriate in these peculiar facts and circumstances that a lumpsum addition of Rs.2.0/- lakhs only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets the relief of Rs.22.5 lakhs in other words. Necessary computation shall follow as per law.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →