SHRI SUNIL KUMAR,DELHI vs. ITO WARD-3(2), BULANDSHAHR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2169/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 July 2025AY 2008-09Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)3 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's bank statement showing a withdrawal of Rs. 7,00,000/- and the possibility of accumulated past savings. Consequently, the addition was reduced to Rs. 11,30,000/-, providing relief to the assessee.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2008-09 arose from an order concerning an addition of Rs. 39,00,000/- for unexplained cash. The Revenue's addition was challenged.

What were the issues?

Correctness of the addition made for unexplained cash and the quantum of addition in light of evidence presented by the assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 21.07.2025Pronounced: 21.07.2025

Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Shri Sunil Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, C-139, Tagore Garden Ext., Ward-3(2), Near Holychild School, Bulandshahr, New Delhi-110027 Uttar Pradesh (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AKBPK2136L Assessee by: Sh. Raja Ram Gupta, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 21.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 21.07.2025 ORDER This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072954667(1) dated 05.02.2025, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

It emerges at the outset that the sole substantive issue between the parties herein is that of correctness of unexplained cash. CIT(A) as against the total addition of Rs.39,00,000/- made in the assessee’s hands in the assessment order dated 25.02.2016.

Sunil Kumar 4. Faced with this situation, learned counsel has filed the assessee’s bank statement indicating him to have withdrawn a cash amount of Rs.7,00,000/- maintained with Bank of India which has gone un-rebutted from the Revenue side. This is indeed coupled with the fact that possibility of some accumulated past savings in the assessee’s hands also could not be altogether ruled out.

5.

Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.11,30,000/- only in the given facts would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be treated as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.8,00,000/- in other words. Necessary computation to follow.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →