AQIBUR REHMAN,SAMBHAL vs. ITO-1(5) SAMBHAL, SAMBHAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 427/DEL/2025Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 July 2025AY 2014-15Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee's brother had withdrawn Rs.9,50,000/- on the date of investment, suggesting merit in the gift plea. Considering this and the lower authorities' failure to consider the assessee's socio-economic status, a lump sum addition of Rs.1,47,150/- was deemed appropriate as a reduced amount, not as a precedent.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal arose from an order upholding an addition of Rs.11,97,150/- under Section 69 for unexplained income. The addition was made for an investment in immovable property where the source was not proven.

What were the issues?

Whether the addition for unexplained investment under Section 69 was justified and whether the lower authorities properly considered the source of funds, including potential gifts from relatives.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 143(3),Section 147

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

Before: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara

Hearing: 01.07.2025Pronounced: 01.07.2025

Asstt. Year : 2014-15 Aqibur Rehman, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o Daroga Ji, Chaudhary Sarai, Ward-1(5), Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh-244202 Sambhal, Uttar Pradesh-244202 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AJQPR7471P Assessee by: Sh. Rajiv Bansal, CA Revenue by : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 01.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement: 01.07.2025 ORDER

This assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15, arises against the CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi’s DIN & order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070629103(1) dated 26.11.2024, in proceedings u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

2.

Heard both the parties at length. Case file perused.

3.

Learned counsel vehemently submits during the course of hearing that both the learned lower authorities herein have erred in law and on facts in making section 69 unexplained/undisclosed income addition of Rs.11,97,150/-; in the course of assessment framed on 19.11.2019 and upheld in the lower appellate discussion.

Aqibur Rehman 4. It is made clear that the impugned sum represents the assessee’s alleged investment made the purchase of immovable property wherein he has been held as having failed in proving source thereof.

5.

Faced with this situation, I notice from a perusal of the case file at page 9 that the assessee’s real brother Sh. Aatif Ali Khan had infact withdrawn cash amounting of Rs.9,50,000/- on the very date of investment i.e. 24.07.2017; and, therefore, it could be reasonably presumed that his plea of having receiving gifts thereof carries some merit although not specifically reconciled in both the lower proceedings. This is indeed coupled with the fact that both the learned lower authorities have also not considered the assessee’s socio economic status all along whilst making the impugned addition. Be that as it may, it is thus deemed appropriate in the larger interest of justice that a lump sum addition of Rs.1,47,150/- only would be just and proper with a rider that the same shall not be as a precedent. The assessee gets relief of Rs.10,50,000/- 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 →