Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal for AY 2015-16 arises from an assessment order made consequent to DRP directions. The assessee was proceeded ex-parte. The Revenue contended that the lower authorities rightly added Rs.9,29,283/- for unexplained investments in shares and mutual funds.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the assessee's bank statement showed debits corresponding to these investments, made from past savings. In the absence of any adverse allegations, the Tribunal concluded that the bank debits could not be treated as unexplained.
Key Issues
Whether bank debits for investments, sourced from past savings and not disputed by the assessing authority, can be treated as unexplained additions when the assessee is proceeded ex-parte?
Sections Cited
147, 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI
Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara
Asstt. Year : 2015-16 Rohit Bedi, Vs ACIT, 4-2/55, Mahavir Enclave, Bengali Intl. Tax-1(1)(2), Colony, Delhi-110045 New Delhi-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJYPB3017H Assessee by: None 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 2015-16, arises against the ACIT, Circle Int. Tax-1(1)(2), New Delhi, assessment order dated 23.12.2024 framed in consequence to the Dispute Resolution Panel (“DRP”)-2, New Delhi directions dated 21.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).
Case called twice. None appears at the assessee’s behest. He is accordingly proceeded ex-parte.
Learned departmental representative vehemently submits during the course of hearing that both the lower authorities herein have rightly added an amount of Rs.9,29,283/- representing the assessee’s unexplained investments made in purchase of shares and mutual funds etc. during the course of Rohit Bedi relevant previous year. His case therefore is that it was the assessee’s onus only to prove the source of the said investments before both the learned lower authorities.
I have given my thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s pleadings all along and the Revenue’s foregoing vehement submissions. A perusal of the case file indicates that even the learned assessing authority itself is very fair in not disputing the clinching fact at page 12 onwards that the assessee’s corresponding bank statement has already witnessed debits of the very investments as to have been made from past savings.
This being the clinching factual position, it is hereby concluded that the learned lower authorities could not have treated the assessee’s bank account debits; in absence of any allegation against, as unexplained herein. The impugned addition stand deleted therefore.